A CALL TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO RELIGIOUS

January 13, 2009
We, the Chicago Coalition for Interreligious Learning: Catholics/Jews/Muslims Working Together, recognize that we live in perilous times. Wherever we turn, we see suffering, hatred, and the death of innocent people. We feel the anguish, grief,pain, anger and frustration within our religious communities. We, who believe that
all are created in the image of God, are deeply saddened by what is happening in our world as well as in our own country. We are especially concerned that our children are deeply affected and frightened not only by the images that they see of death, violence, devastation and the desecration of holy places of worship, but also by the voices they hear preaching hatred, violence and vengeance on a daily basis.

We abhor and condemn all acts of hatred against any religious and cultural community. We are committed to our common effort to tirelessly work toward ending violence, and to working together to strengthen the relationships we have among our religious communities.

Coalition members have worked for almost 6 years to promote interreligious teaching, learning and understanding among educators at all levels in our religious schools. We believe this is an essential step in creating a better future not only for our children, but for all who live in the Chicago area. Now more than ever, we believe in the critical importance of interfaith understanding as an authentic interpretation of religious ideals and we will and must continue to speak out in our
own communities and throughout the Chicago area.

We urge all Christians, Jews, Muslims and all people of good faith to join us in our interreligious efforts by reinforcing the Golden Rule at all places and at all times.

“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is
the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12

“Not one of you will be a true believer who does not wish
for his brother the same that he wishes for himself.” Hadith Al-Bukhari 2:6

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Leviticus 19:18

Now, more than ever, we can, we will, we must keep working together to further our goals of teaching children and adults how to respect and value people of all religious faiths; how to listen to people of all faiths; how to build relationships of trust and understanding; and how to continue working together, despite difficult times and in
difficult situations, to make this a better world for all of us.

On behalf of the CCIRL, the Catholic/Jewish/Muslim coalition:
Ms. Esther Hicks; Rabbi Daniel Sherbill; Dr. Tasneema Ghazi; Ms. Esta G. Star, Chair

Join the Call for a Cease Fire in Gaza

The following letter from Rabbi Michael Lerner was sent to a friend calling for a cease fire in Gaza and for President-elect Obama to call for an international conference to establish a lasting peace with the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Dear Friends,
Will you help us buy a full page ad in the NY Times calling for a cease fire and for president-elect Obama to call for an international conference to once and for all provide a settlement to the Israel/Palestine conflict and to create peace with all Israel’s neighbors?
Even if you don’t have any money, you can sign the ad. But it will only become an ad if we can raise about $60,000, and that will take us little people stretching our pocket books far beyond our normal capacities. Could you donate $1,000? $500? $300? $100? $50? $25? Whatever you can afford would be important and helpful.
You can read the text of the ad here and see what it would look like as a full page ad here. You can sign up and donate here (all these links can also be reached by clicking on the left side of the page at www.tikkun.org). Or to donate you can send a check to Tikkun or your credit card info (including expiration date and security code) to Peace Ad, c/o Tikkun, 2342 Shattuck Ave, Suite 1200, Berkeley, Ca. 94704. Or you can call in your credit card info to Kay@tikkun.org: 510 644 1200 9-5 Pacific Standard Time.
Timing is everything-we need to move as quickly as possible. Send this request to everyone on all of your email lists, PLEASE. Remind them that even if they don’t have a penny to their names, they can still sign the ad at www.tikkun.org.
Many thanks for your continued support. Together we are already making a difference!
Love and blessings,
Michael

Rabbi Michael Lerner
RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org
web: www.tikkun.org
email: info@spiritualprogressives.org

Statement by Israeli Women’s Organization To Stop the War

We womens organizations from a broad spectrum of political views demand an end to the bombing and other tools of death, and call for the immediate start of deliberations to talk peace and not make war. The dance of death and destruction must come to an end. We demand that war no longer be an option, nor violence a strategy, nor killing an alternative. The society we want is one in which every individual can lead a life of security personal, economic, and social.

It is clear that the highest price is paid by women and others from the periphery geographic, economic, ethnic, social, and cultural who now, as always, are excluded from the public eye and dominant discourse.

The time for women is now. We demand that words and actions be conducted in another language.

Ahoti- For Women in Israel

Anuar- Jewish and Arab Women Leadership
Artemis- Economic Society for Women

Aswat- Palestinian Gay Women

Bat Shalom

Coalition of Women for Peace

Economic Empowerment for Women

Feminancy: College for Womens Empowerment

Feminist Activist Group Jerusalem

Feminist Activist Group Tel Aviv

International Womens Commission: Israeli Branch

Isha Lâ•˙Isha- Haifa Feminist Center

Itach: Women Lawyers for Social Justice

Kol Ha-Isha- Jerusalem Womens Center

Mahut Center- Information, Training, and Employment for Women

Shin Movement- Equal Representation for Women

Supportive Community- Women’s Business Development Center
TANDI Movement of Democratic Women for Israel

Tmura: The Israeli Antidiscrimination Legal Center

University against Harassment” Tel Aviv

Women and their Bodies

Womens Parliament

Womens Spirit- Financial Independence for Women Victims of Violence

Good Research Material to Check Out

For those doing research in the area of Women’s Rights and how religious fundamentalisms undermine them, here is a good link:

AWID initiative dealing with religious fundamentalism: http://www.awid.org/eng/About-AWID/AWID-Initiatives/Resisting-and-Challenging-Religious-Fundamentalisms

www.awid.org awid

Ten myths
about religious
fundamentalisms

Myth #1: Religious fundamentalisms are about
the fundamentals of religion
Myth #2: Religious fundamentalisms are only
about politics
Myth #3: Religious fundamentalisms are like any
other political force
Myth #4: Religious fundamentalists are those
backward extremists
Myth #5: Religious fundamentalisms exist in
only some religions or regions
Myth #6: Religious fundamentalisms promote
clean politics and honesty
Myth #7: Religious fundamentalisms stand for
the poor and the downtrodden
Myth #8: Religious fundamentalisms are familyfriendly
and pro-life
Myth #9: Religious fundamentalisms defend our
traditional ways and authentic identities
Myth #10: Religious fundamentalisms are
invincible

The myths exposed in this publication come from the experiences of
more than 1,600 women’s rights activists who responded to AWID’s
Resisting and Challenging Religious Fundamentalisms survey,1 as
well as 51 key experts who were interviewed for the project. Together,
these women’s rights activists represent a diverse group: ranging in
age from under 16 to over 65 years of age; working on different issues
and affected by different religious fundamentalisms; working at local,
national, regional or international levels in various regions, and in
organizations that range from non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and community-based organizations (CBOs) to government and
multilateral agencies. They include academics, human rights defenders,
youth and development workers, as well as members of religious
organizations.
Despite this diversity, we found many myths in common: myths we
hold about religious fundamentalisms, as well as myths that religious
fundamentalists would like us to believe. Our research reveals that the
behaviours and impacts of religious fundamentalisms are clearly more
negative than they would like to admit or take responsibility for. But it
also reveals that religious fundamentalisms are not as simple to analyze
as we sometimes believe. In other words, some major myths, promoted
both from the inside looking out and from the outside looking in, were
exposed by our findings.
This publication is about the top ten myths common to all regions and
religions covered in AWID’s research. They can be countered by holding
religious fundamentalists accountable for what they say and do, and by
ensuring that our analysis most closely matches the lived experiences
of women’s rights activists. By exposing these myths, we hope that we
can contribute to strengthening resistance and challenges to religious
fundamentalisms.
Introduction
___________________
1 In August 2007, AWID
launched an online survey
on the subject of religious
fundamentalisms and
women’s rights. There were
over 2,000 responses, of
which 1,602 of the most
complete were selected for
analysis.

Myth #1: Religious fundamentalisms are about the
fundamentals of religion
The myth and how it works
Many religious fundamentalist organizations claim that their work only involves promoting
religious teachings. This myth gives religious fundamentalisms the image of a legitimate
social force that rises above politics and power. It also suggests that it is only natural
that all “good” followers of a religion share the fundamentalist viewpoint and that one
who resists religious fundamentalisms is not a “true believer”. Forty percent of women’s
rights activists have been labelled “atheist” or “unbeliever” by religious fundamentalists
due to their work for women’s human rights. Moreover, in the experiences of nearly
60% of women’s rights activists, people from the same religion but with different political
opinions are targeted for physical and verbal attack by religious fundamentalists.
Speaking with the support of God is something very different from
speaking without it; God is an important source of legitimacy. They
are speaking from the Good and for God. It puts you on the side of
sin and the Devil. (Susana Chiarotti, Argentina)
Some women’s rights activists seem to agree with the religious fundamentalists’ claim
that it is all about religion. In the AWID survey, about 18% of women’s rights activists
from across the world, as well as some working in United Nations agencies, provide
definitions of religious fundamentalisms such as “[b]elieving and acting by the basic
principles of a religion”, or “[t]he use of or reference to deeply-seated and underlying
religious beliefs, values, notions and/or practices.”
Not all religious people are fundamentalists!
Being religious and being a religious fundamentalist are two separate matters. What
distinguishes religious fundamentalists is their far right political views, along with the
conviction that they are divinely mandated to impose on others what they believe to
be the singular truth. There are many rights activists who take a strong stand against
religious fundamentalist viewpoints from within a religious framework. Examples include
groups such as Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC)/Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir
(CDD), the Metropolitan Community Churches, Kolech-Religious Women’s Forum, the
International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB), and Sisters in Islam, as well as
individuals working within the Hindu tradition.
We work with sheikhs and religious scholars to show the people
that the interpretation that is offered by religious fundamentalist
groups is not the only one available. In most cases when people
are offered an alternative interpretation, they take it, because they
say it’s a suffocating life to live as is preached by those religious
fundamentalists. (Azza Soleiman, Egypt)

I urge us not lump together as [a] negative phenomenon every
time religion and politics have something to say to each other -
Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, they are heroes for humanity.
It’s not all terrible when religion has something to say in the
political sphere: it is a question of what it has to say and how it
says it. (Debbie Weissman, Israel)
Religious fundamentalists want power!
Many women’s rights activists highlight the political nature of religious fundamentalisms
and their quest for political and social power. As one activist from Brazil puts it, “[t]he
Association of Brazilian Bishops does more politicking than religion!” In Uganda and
Brazil, for example, Pentecostal church leaders instruct congregations on which way to
vote.
It’s a struggle for power, not because of religion; most of them
aren’t really, really religious but want control of the population. The
bottom line is how much followership they can get and how much
resources they can generate from that followership. Every religion
has it. (Mairo Bello, Nigeria)
Across regions and religions, religious fundamentalists have entered mainstream politics
and stand for election to local and national legislative bodies. This is sometimes done
through political parties that are clearly based on religion, for example, the Muslim
Brotherhood, Jamaat-i-Islami, Agudat Israel and Buhay (Catholic charismatics in the
Philippines). At other times, a political party’s apparently secular or nationalist name
conceals a fundamentalist agenda or alliance: for example, the Republican Party in
the United States is heavily influenced by the Christian Right; many leading figures in
India’s Bharatiya Janata Party are also members of the Hindu fundamentalist Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS); Ministers in post-Sandinista Nicaragua are influenced
by Opus Dei; and Sri Lanka’s Jathika Hela Urumaya promotes Sinhala-Buddhist
supremacy.
Religious fundamentalisms aim to capture public spaces and dominate public policy,
to the exclusion of other influences. For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church has
successfully lobbied for an end to the separation of church and state. This now exempts
churches and religious communities from the restrictions on other non-governmental and
social organizations.
They operate via the political class; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t
be so effective. Women have abortions, use contraceptives, don’t
always do what the Church hierarchy says and are still Catholic or
Protestant. In daily life, people don’t put religious directives first.
But when these directives become public policies, that’s when the
problems start. (Ana María Pizarro, Nicaragua)

Myth #2: Religious fundamentalisms are only about
politics
The myth and how it works
When women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms, about one-fifth mention
the words “politics” and “power”. For some, this is the central definition: religious
fundamentalisms are “the use of religion for political purposes and for capturing the
state”. However, one must ask what kind of politics is being promoted through religion,
and whether it seeks to restrict or advance human rights and people’s moral agency.
Since, for example, progressive Liberation Theology also has political aims, defining
religious fundamentalisms just as “political religion” does not sufficiently highlight the
rightwing aspects of religious fundamentalisms.
Fundamentalist ambitions go beyond the border of politics to envision a complete reordering
of society. When we see religious fundamentalisms as more than “only about
politics”, it becomes possible to develop responses to some of their successful social
strategies, such as creating emotional communities and a sense of belonging and
engaging in service delivery and charitable works. Finally, since religious fundamentalist
strategies build on the importance of religion in many people’s lives, an overemphasis
on their political nature means that rights activists may overlook the place of religion in
religious fundamentalisms.
Religion is at the centre of religious
fundamentalisms!
Religious fundamentalisms are clearly a political phenomenon. Yet, it is necessary to
go beyond this assertion and recognize the importance of religious symbolism and
texts for religious fundamentalisms. Engaging with the centrality of religion can enable
progressive forces to reclaim this space from fundamentalists. It can allow activists
to examine more deeply and critically that which has enabled patriarchal religious
fundamentalisms to emerge out of religion, and to examine if and how these regressive
aspects of religion can be reformed.
The historic antipathy to women found in the teachings, theology
and attitudes of most of the world’s religions… We need to
understand that there is a historic, deeply embedded reality about
religion itself. (Frances Kissling, United States)
We need to break the monopoly of the Ulema. Religion is in the
public space; that is our reality. If we don’t engage with religion it
remains in the hands of the oppressors. (Zainah Anwar, Malaysia)
Recognizing that religion – especially in the form of religious institutions – is also at
the centre of religious fundamentalist recruitment, funding and campaigning also helps
rights activists to strategize more effectively. According to women’s rights activists across
8 awid
religions and regions, religious fundamentalists most actively recruit in places of worship
and other religious institutions such as Torah and Bible study groups and madrasahs.
Four out of five see religious leaders and local religious institutions/organizations as the
most influential religious fundamentalist actors, placing them above religious political
parties and apparently secular political parties with fundamentalist links.
Agudat Israel ideology says that you go to rabbis not only for
specific Jewish legal questions but for any question – political or
social. (Debbie Weissman, Israel)
In Uganda, Pentecostal churches mobilized their congregations to
sign petitions against ratification of the African Union Protocol on
the Rights of Women in Africa in protest of its provisions around
reproductive health and rights. (Solome Nakaweesi-Kimbugwe,
Uganda)2
Women’s rights activists see local religious organizations as the most significant
source of funding for religious fundamentalisms, and two-thirds regard money from
followers as significant. Examples include donations of sacrificial animal skins during
the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha in Egypt, the Islamic tax, or khums (one-fifth of net
income) mandated in the Shia tradition, the tithes paid by church followers in Ghana and
Guatemala, and the sale of “good luck” items by Toitsu Kyokai (The Unification Church,
whose members are known as ‘Moonies’) in Japan. Although some “donations” are
forced, clearly some supporters see a spiritual gain that compensates for their material
loss.
Even when the church leaders are riding limousines, [the followers
are] still willing to drop their last penny in the collection box, and
this is replacing food on their tables. (Dorothy Aken’Ova, Nigeria)
Zakat – every Muslim has to pay 2.5% of his or her income to the
state or religious parties to help the poor, but this amount is being
misused for violence. (survey respondent, Pakistan)
Religious fundamentalists want social control!
Religious fundamentalisms have a broad goal of social control, beyond any capture
of state or political power. As part of this goal, religious fundamentalisms in all regions
and religions specifically target youth and the education system, which allows them
to influence society without having to capture state power. For example, Opus Dei
campaigned to discredit the leadership of Peru’s Pontifical Catholic University, which is
influenced by the Jesuit Order and known throughout the region for its openly progressive
positions on issues of human rights and democracy. In many countries, religious
fundamentalist organizations give scholarships and social support to talented but poor
young men and women, which guarantees an educated cadre whose loyalty then often
extends for generations. Examples of programs to shape youth include the personal
development courses run by Hindu fundamentalists in India, youth camps run by
Christian Evangelical groups in the United States, and the speed dating organized by the
Jewish youth organization Aish HaTorah.
Religious fundamentalisms use service provision to achieve political legitimacy and
recruit support, but also to directly promote their vision of society. Church-run hospitals
in Brazil and Zambia, for example, offer sexual and reproductive health services that
promote a model of women that is submissive and marriage-normative.
A woman was widowed. She was given a lot of support from a
group of conservative Muslim women. They visited her, took her
shopping and provided her with emotional support. Along with
this support came the message of what a good Muslim woman
should be. For example, she started covering herself and stopped
swimming as these were seen as identifying a good woman. So
social welfare is delivered with a strong particular message of
what Islam is. (Alia Hogben, Canada)
For 85% of women’s rights activists, an important religious fundamentalist strategy is
presenting rigid gender roles within the family as “natural”. One young feminist explains
this goal of social control:
Controlling women is the key to controlling a culture. These
religious fundamentalists are afraid of women’s inherent power,
especially in regards to childrearing. If women are treated as
children, they cannot be as effective in shaping children. When
women cannot control their fertility, they cannot get access to
education and cannot challenge those in power. It is a vicious
cycle to keep half of the population in servitude, maintaining the
status quo. (Lonna Hays, United States)
Religious fundamentalists also have impact as individuals; they seek social control within
their families and all spheres of life where they may have decision-making power. For
example, contrary to any public legislation requiring dress codes in public services, the
medical superintendent of the public Lahore Services Hospital in Pakistan ordered all
nurses to be veiled, with cloth that he had received for free from Saudi Arabia.
What General Zia ul-Haq did in terms of laws was to replace the
written text as a reference point for decision-making with people’s
interpretation of religion as a reference point… As a judge, you
are not supposed to say “my understanding of Islam”; you are
supposed to say “according to the law of this land and the text
and [previous] rulings” and to argue the case. (Farida Shaheed,
Pakistan)

Myth #3: Religious fundamentalisms are like any other
political force
The myth and how it works
National and foreign governments as well as multilateral agencies often see some
religious fundamentalist groups as simply a normal part of the political process and
democratic spaces. As a result, for example, foreign embassy officials in Bangladesh
frequently interact with religious fundamentalist groups, including senior figures facing
criminal charges for murder. This grants such groups legitimacy and further strengthens
them.
When some religious fundamentalists are seen as “only moderates” or are accepted as a
normal political force, the entire political arena shifts to the Right, and rights activists may
find themselves criticized for not being open to collaboration and partnership with such
groups. Progressive forces such as women’s and human rights activists then become
de-legitimized as “extremist” and “marginal”. In Britain for example, complaints from
human rights defenders about local Hindu and Muslim fundamentalist groups that were
receiving government funding were ignored for years. Religious fundamentalisms have
a way of operating that makes them a particularly dangerous political and social force;
their impact thus requires a different strategic response from rights and development
movements.
Religious fundamentalists have God-appeal!
Religious fundamentalisms promote unequal power relations within society, especially
within the family, as “God given” and natural. What one women’s rights activist calls “the
reordering of notions of masculinity and femininity by religious fundamentalisms” thus
becomes difficult to challenge. This can be especially harmful for marginalized groups
in society, such as victims of domestic violence in Thailand who are told by Buddhist
monks that they are beaten as a result of “bad karma”.
If Al-Azhar says that something that you are doing is haram
[prohibited in religion], that is the ultimate taboo. For young
women now, to show your hair is haram, to not obey your elder
brother is haram, to do this is haram , to do that is haram, to the
point where her entire life is governed by haram, while a young
man has nothing of that sort. (Azza Soleiman, Egypt)
Religious fundamentalisms are different from other rights-violating ideologies such as
ethno-nationalist and cultural fundamentalisms or neoliberalism, because religious
fundamentalisms appear to address metaphysical questions. This makes them
particularly hard to resist. As one women’s rights activist from Canada explains,
“[t]hey start to define who you are and your very reason for being here – and therefore in
challenging them you are challenging the essence of your very being.” In many contexts,
religion has become a sensitive subject that can elicit highly polarized reactions – where
a challenge to religion is often perceived as a threat to individual or communal identity.
This makes it especially difficult for young women to work on the issue of religious
fundamentalisms while still trying to determine where they stand with regard to religion,
culture and society.
When, for example, Ugandan Pentecostal and Charismatic Church leaders promise their
impoverished congregations future wealth, they play on the human need for hope in a
complex and sometimes hopeless world. Religious fundamentalisms offer a vital grand
narrative. In some contexts, they provide emotional communities that respond to the
need for belonging. In Brazil, for example, one women’s rights activist notes that religious
fundamentalists focus less on providing charity services than on building emotional
communities around personal subjectivities:
They work on people’s emotional responses in terms of big
meetings where people come together. This is something they’ve
learned from the evangelists (the Catholic Church). They have big
rallies where [the experience] is very mystical and spiritual. They
invest a lot in this kind of thing. For example, where a figure like
the Pope comes, everything they do is to create emotional spaces
so that people can identify with the discourse or the speeches that
he makes. (Maria José Rosado-Nunes, Brazil)
The fundamental attraction of religious fundamentalisms is their
capacity to provide identity, certainty, and quick and seemingly
unquestionable definitions and solutions. It is impossible to
seriously work on sexuality and offer that. On the contrary, the only
thing we can offer are ‘uncertainties’, risk and multiple possibilities
that then open up and add more and more complexities. (Alejandra
Sardá, Argentina)
Religious fundamentalism is a form of defensive community
identity that gives this kind of security and safety. When I did my
work on Jewish fundamentalism, people said to me ‘I didn’t know
what it meant to be Jewish but now I know!’ [This meets] such an
existential need. (Nira Yuval-Davis, United Kingdom/Israel)
Religious fundamentalisms are absolutist,
intolerant and violent!
No matter what religion is dominant in their contexts, women’s rights activists most
commonly define religious fundamentalisms as “absolutist and intolerant”. In the over
1,500 comments that AWID received defining religious fundamentalisms, phrases such
as “lack of acceptance for alternative worldviews and lifestyles”, “lack of respect for
difference of opinion” and “intolerance of questioning” are repeated by women’s rights
12 awid
activists from every region. This claim to the Truth is not just another manifestation of
rightwing political thinking:
Conservatives think for themselves; religious fundamentalisms want
everyone to think their way. I can debate with people that disagree
with me but not with people who think they have a direct line to
God. (Rev. Debra W. Haffner, United States)
Some of the most extreme religious fundamentalist violence targets those who air
opposing views, including artists, intellectuals, journalists and other public figures. Under
the banner of “morality” or “blasphemy”, there have been public attacks on artistic freedom
by religious fundamentalists in recent years, including Hindu fundamentalist attacks
on Indian artist M.F. Husain and filmmaker Deepa Mehta; Sikh fundamentalist attacks
on Behzti, a play in Britain about sexual abuse in Sikh temples; the murders of several
journalists and popular artists by Muslim fundamentalists in Algeria; bans on the screening
of the film The Da Vinci Code following pressure from the Catholic Church; and the
Christian Right’s attempt to close down Jerry Springer: The Opera.
Figure 1 shows high levels of verbal and physical violence by religious fundamentalists
against various targeted groups – with human rights activists and women in general
perceived as the most frequently targeted.
Figure 1: Thinking about your work over the past ten years, which of the following
people or groups have been targeted by fundamentalists for verbal or physical
attack?
Note: These are the combined percentages of women’s rights activists who respond “sometimes”
or “frequently” to each type of target.
Base: 1,380 survey respondents
77%
77%
75%
75%
68%
66%
64%
58%
57%
56%
53%
53%
30%
29%
26%
Women in general
Human rights activists
LGTBQI people and groups
People who do not match the RF’s expected norms
Intellectuals/journalists
Members of another religion
Secular people or atheists
Members of same religion with other political opinions
Popular artists & media personalities
Ethnic or racial minorities
Members of the same religion but another sect
Peace activists
Trade unionists
Multinational businesses
Human rights activists
Women in general
LGTBQI people and groups
People who do not match the
RF’s expected norms
Intellectuals/journalists
Members of another religion
Secular people or atheists
Members of same religion with other
political opinions
Popular artists and media personalities
Ethnic or racial minorities
Members of the same religion
but another sect
Peace activists
Trade unionists
Local wealthy or powerful individuals
Multinational businesses
Religious fundamentalists are against
pluralism and democracy!
In the name of political pluralism and social diversity, religious fundamentalists claim the
right to be treated like any other political or socially influential force. But in the view of
women’s rights activists, in practice they divide rather than unite society. In Azerbaijan,
religious fundamentalisms have caused social polarization between the religious and
the non-religious, and rifts between sects in Pakistan. In India, this has culminated in
a Hindu fundamentalist campaign to make villages “Muslim-free”, with armed Bajrang
Dal activists driving Muslim families from their homes. In each context, opposing groups
have what one women’s rights activist calls “this need for power and strength in numbers
that has created fear and intimidation”.
Religious fundamentalists strategize to restrict resources available to those who
oppose them. In Mexico, for instance, the fundamentalist-influenced Health Ministry has
obstructed funding for NGOs working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer
and intersex (LGBTQI) people. In Bangladesh’s coalition government, a Jamaat-i-Islami
member became the Minister for Social Welfare, which played an important role in
allowing religious fundamentalists to operate in the guise of NGOs and also in restricting
the space for NGOs who challenged them. This impact on funding can undermine
democratic accountability: in Canada, the Evangelical-influenced Conservative
Government has cut funding for women’s groups that actively monitored government
performance.
Religious fundamentalists attack collective organizing by women and progressive
religious groups. For example, they strategically undermined the infrastructure of the
progressive church in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, and in Latin America
attempts have been made to de-register Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir (Catholics
for a Free Choice).
When we started our work in the slum areas, religious leaders
started giving us threatening messages, destroyed our vehicle and
claimed that we would sell the girls from the slum. They spread
false messages about our team, so that women would not come
to our meetings. It took more than three years to deal [with this];
we spent so much energy on the mullahs. (survey respondent,
Pakistan)
When religious fundamentalists campaign for democracy, it is largely based on a limited
vision of pluralism that enables their own political participation but seeks to restrict that of
others. For example, Muslim fundamentalist groups in Kenya have strongly campaigned
against a proposed anti-terrorism bill and issues related to fighting terrorism as most of
those targeted are Muslims, but “the same people involved in this campaign are also the
champions of anti-women[’s] rights policies and laws”.

Religious fundamentalist campaigns for separate religious schools undermine pluralism
in society and ultimately contradict fundamentalist claims to campaigning in favour
of political pluralism. In Nigeria for example, religious fundamentalists have tried to
undermine federal government “unity schools”; these schools are part of a deliberate
attempt to counteract ethno-religious polarization and have quotas to ensure students
come from every state. A researcher on the Orthodox Jewish community found that “the
one thing that made a difference was being exposed to other world views as legitimate,
which you can get only if you have the same school”. (Nira Yuval-Davis, United Kingdom/
Israel)
Imagine the fragmentation: so the Wiccans, Baha’is, the five
kinds of Muslims, 16 kinds of Christians are all going to send their
children to separate schools. (Alia Hogben, Canada)
Religious fundamentalisms obstruct rights
more than other political forces!
As a development rights worker in India notes, “[f]or a long time people have dismissed
some of these groups as just fringe extremist groups and had not really seen them until
they became powerful enough to have an impact” (Mona Mehta, India). Yet the negative
impact is felt across a wide range of rights. The five most frequently mentioned impacts
are: reduced health and reproductive rights; reduced general autonomy for women
(such as the imposition of dress codes or reinforcing women’s inequality in the family);
increased violence against women; reduced sexual rights and freedoms; and reduced
rights for women in the public sphere.
For about 7 out of 10 women’s rights activists, religious fundamentalisms obstruct
women’s rights more than other political forces: 44% say that they obstruct women’s
rights “much more” than other political forces. Nearly 80% of women’s rights activists
regard religious fundamentalisms as having a negative impact on women’s rights in the
context of their work.
The task for those of us who work on human rights is to persuade
people that we are not attacking an ideology, we are talking about
grave crimes – whether state or non-state. We are not talking
about some nasty people in funny clothes that many largely
Northern and Western organizations feel uncomfortable about
criticizing. Many people have no idea what is meant by ‘attacks on
women’s rights’ either in scale or ferocity – so we have to analyze
them as human rights violations, and we have to document them,
to increase their visibility… But women under the worst threat quite
often do not document because they are doing so many other
things. (Gita Sahgal, United Kingdom/India)

Myth #4: Religious fundamentalists are those
backward extremists
The myth and how it works
Religious fundamentalisms are sometimes dismissed as arising from “archaic texts”,
“traditional beliefs”, or “old myths”. Within the women’s movement and beyond, some
also see modernism and religious fundamentalisms as two completely opposite forces.
This myth means that religious fundamentalisms become stereotyped as an object of
ridicule instead of being seen as a flexible social force that requires a sophisticated
strategic response. The presumption that religious fundamentalists are only those easy
to spot medievalists who wear “strange clothes” and are visibly “extremist” can lead
governments, multilateral agencies and international NGOs to collaborate with and
legitimize groups that women’s rights activists warn are, on the contrary, fundamentalist.
It allows the religious fundamentalist who wears a smart suit, appears to be concerned
about women’s rights, and co-opts human rights language to go unchallenged.
Muslim fundamentalists have successfully lobbied human rights
organizations, the Left at large, the anti-globalization movement,
and even feminists in Europe, etc… i.e., all the political forces that
should be our natural allies. (Marieme Hélie-Lucas, France/Algeria)
Religious fundamentalisms are thoroughly
modern!
Religious fundamentalisms all share a critique of modernity, but it is a highly selective
critique; they work in a globalized way, support or exploit neoliberal politics and discourse,
and use technologies that are all essential aspects of modernity. No matter how much
they may refer to a “pure tradition” or “glorious past”, religious fundamentalisms are very
much part of today’s world, shaping it and also being shaped by it.
More than four out of five women’s rights activists state that religious fundamentalisms
use modern technologies (e.g., Internet, cable TV, satellite technology) to promote their
messages. In Zimbabwe, fundamentalist churches use PowerPoint for preaching, offer
business management workshops and have sophisticated sound equipment; in the
Philippines, religious fundamentalists hold rock concerts to fundraise and appeal to youth;
and in Fiji, Radio Light, one of only two free channels, devotes much of its airtime to
Evangelical content from overseas.
There are almost 40 new TV channels that are addressing Iraqis
and all the surrounding countries, but I would say that 80% of them
are religious. If you have the mass media under your control, you
can manipulate millions of people. (Yanar Mohammed, Iraq)
The double standards of such tactics have not gone unnoticed in Nigeria: “[i]f you analyze
their own private lives, it’s not going the way they preach. If they are anti-West, they have
satellites; they use the Internet; they use airplanes…”
16 awid
Religious fundamentalisms also appear perfectly comfortable with globalized big
business. Popular multinational food chains fund anti-abortion groups such as Operation
Rescue in the United States; fundamentalist groups in Mexico have bought up privatized
public companies; and fundamentalist Hindu temples in Britain are places where
important business relationships are built.
In tune with the contemporary world, most religious fundamentalisms are transnational
movements, and take advantage of aspects of globalization to spread their influence.
For Indonesian women’s rights activists, the transnational Hizb ut-Tahrir (founded
by an Arab Israeli) is a locally influential religious fundamentalist force, and women
from Latin America say the same about Opus Dei (founded in Spain). Distinguishing
between what is transnational and what is local is almost impossible in the case of Sikh
fundamentalisms.
While many movements operate transnationally, religious fundamentalisms have also
recognized the importance of operating at the level of regional and international fora,
influencing the development and direction of international standards. One women’s
rights activist highlights the impact of this trend within the European Union:
The fundamentalists succeeded in freezing policies of the
European Union as far as sexual and reproductive health and
rights are concerned. Due to strong pressure from conservative
forces, including members of the EU Parliament, any progressive
initiatives to address sexual and reproductive health and rights
in Europe are being rejected. Polish fundamentalists sitting
in the European Parliament, supported by their Slovakian
colleagues and others with close collaboration with the Vatican,
have undertaken a number of initiatives that could inhibit the
implementation of already adopted policies. (Wanda Nowicka,
Poland)
There is no such thing as a typical religious
fundamentalist!
AWID’s research found that there is no “typical fundamentalist”. They may operate at
local or global levels; through religious or secular institutions; as individuals or through
institutions; and as leaders or followers. Many religious fundamentalists even traverse
some of these dichotomies and can, for example, work through religious and secular
institutions at the same time. When women’s rights activists name the most influential
fundamentalist actors in their contexts, they name a wide variety. In addition, nearly
every religion in every region has a similar recurrent cast: politicians in secular and
religious parties, religious leaders, charities and NGOs, local and international religious
organizations, missionaries, and ordinary followers in our communities and families.
When asked to rate the relative influence of a range of fundamentalist actors in their
work, 62% of women’s rights activists name NGOs and/or charities with fundamentalist
tendencies or links, and 59% name secular political parties whose leaders have
fundamentalist links. In AWID’s research, these less obvious examples were mentioned
more frequently than the expected category of armed groups. This indicates that
physical violence is not the only defining characteristic of religious fundamentalisms.
A women’s rights activist in Fiji notes that religious fundamentalist groups mostly
operate not through public campaigns, but rather through quiet lobbying and high-level
access to political decision-makers. The content of an actor’s agenda is, for some
women’s rights activists, more important than that actor’s specific label as “religious” in
defining an institution or an individual as “fundamentalist”. In this sense, civic or political
leaders can be considered part of the phenomenon if they defend a fundamentalist
agenda.
It always works this way: a ‘pro-life’ group makes noise, religious
leaders condemn the Ministry of Health or Education, and finally
the President recalls the document. It’s the same format in all
these countries. (Ana María Pizarro, Nicaragua)

Myth #5: Religious fundamentalisms only exist in
some religions or regions
The myth and how it works
Part of the myth that religious fundamentalisms are medieval and purely extremist
means they are also seen as somehow not being part of the local landscape here
but “out there”. The term was originally a proud self-labelling by early 20th century
American Christian Evangelicals, but in the context of today’s ‘War on Terror’, religious
fundamentalism is often presumed to mean only Muslim fundamentalists. The result
is that one religion is demonized and by extension, all its followers presumed to be
“fundamentalist”. This is discussed further in AWID’s publication “Shared Insights:
Women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms” (2008). In Latin America and
the Caribbean often only the Catholic hierarchy is identified as fundamentalist, which
overlooks the rising influence of fundamentalist Pentecostals and Charismatics.
Also, seeing religious fundamentalisms as a distant phenomenon “out there” means
the influence of their ideas within parts of the women’s and human rights movements
themselves can be overlooked. In some countries, despite the presence of active
women’s movements and women’s NGOs, there can be a noticeable reluctance to
wholeheartedly sign up to issues of reproductive choice and sexual diversity. Women’s
rights activists from Africa and the Pacific region echo the concern raised by a Fijian
activist that “[m]any who would call themselves human rights activists do not even
recognize the churches they belong to as fundamentalist, nor wish to challenge their
teachings”.
The other side of this coin is the presumption among some women’s rights activists
that their own experience of religious fundamentalisms is worse than any other, and not
shared by others in different contexts. It is important to build the recognition that religious
fundamentalisms are found in every religion and region, and that there are commonalities
in the ways they work, grow and impact women’s rights that rise above regional
and religious variations. This shared understanding can help develop more effective
transnational and regional alliances as well as strategies for resisting and challenging
religious fundamentalisms.
All religions have fundamentalist tendencies!
Women’s rights activists in every region find fundamentalist tendencies within the world’s
major and minor religions. AWID’s research found their work is negatively affected
by fundamentalisms whether the context is Buddhist, Catholic, Christian (including
Evangelical forms such as Pentecostal or Charismatic churches), Hindu, Jewish, Muslim
or Sikh. Localized religious traditions such as ethno-religious movements, e.g., Kenyan
Mungiki, Congo’s Kimbaguists and Bundu dia Kongo, Afro-Brazilian Candomblé, Mexican
indigenous Tepehuán and Nepali shamanism, and new religions, e.g., the Unification
Church (‘Moonies’) or the Shinto-related Seicho-No-Ie in Japan also show some
fundamentalist tendencies.
Fundamentalism is therefore not the monopoly of any one religion, nor is any religion
covered by AWID’s research free of fundamentalist actors.
Religious fundamentalisms are a global phenomenon. In the last ten years, women’s
rights activists in all regions have observed a significant rise in these movements – both
globally (“out there”) and in their work. For 76% of women’s rights activists, the strength
of religious fundamentalisms has increased globally in the past decade, and for 60%, it
has increased a lot in their work.
Women have shared understandings and
experiences of religious fundamentalisms!
Despite the diversity of their experiences of religious fundamentalisms, women’s rights
activists have a shared understanding of the phenomenon. There are no significant
differences in terms of how they define religious fundamentalisms (see “Shared Insights:
Women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms”, 2008). The same types of
main fundamentalist actors also reappear in each region and religion. No matter what the
religion, fundamentalists campaign most frequently on “morality” and issues of sexuality.
Indeed, there are often similarities in areas where religious fundamentalisms are
presumed to work very differently. For example, Catholic, Orthodox Christian and
Pentecostal fundamentalists are broadly seen as obsessed with obstructing abortion
and sexual and reproductive rights, while Muslim fundamentalists are perceived to focus
more on dress codes. However, Pentecostal fundamentalists also impose dress codes
and Muslim fundamentalists are also anti-abortion – they simply vary with regard to their
emphases.

For each aspect of how religious fundamentalisms campaign and strategize, link
transnationally, fund their work, and impact on women’s rights and human rights,
AWID’s research found that commonalities overwhelmingly outweigh certain specificities
according to region and religion. Emphasizing religion as a feature of national identity is
also an almost universally significant strategy for religious fundamentalisms. The closely
related strategy of asserting moral superiority over a foreign culture or other religious
communities is seen by women’s rights activists as an important strategy in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Similarly, in Latin America and the Caribbean, blaming social problems on a
“decline in morality” or the “disintegration of the family” is the topmost important strategy
in the region, which is closely related to presenting gender roles as “natural” – something
that resonates across all other regions.

Myth #6: Religious fundamentalisms promote clean
politics and honesty
The myth and how it works
The myth that religious fundamentalisms promote clean politics and honesty makes them
apparently different from other influential social and political forces, and is central to their
claim to legitimacy. Claiming to be concerned with our souls and protecting the social
fabric, they are purportedly upright and incorruptible. When they enter politics, they are
supposedly above the usual nepotism. As a reaction to declining standards in public and
private “morality”, they say what they mean and do what they say. It is a short, easy step
for religious fundamentalisms to then set up a world that contains only opposing pairs
and no grey areas, which matches their absolutist vision: Good and Evil, the Believer
and the Unbeliever, with all political opposition falling into the negative category.
Individual, institutional and political corruption.

While some religious fundamentalist groups may be recognized for their charitable
works, there have been many documented cases of gross misuse of donations. For
example, a women’s rights activist in Indonesia reports that in 2004, followers of a local
religious fundamentalist group sought donations in public places such as sidewalk
eateries, masquerading as fundraisers for orphanages or street children. Rights groups
in Britain have published information about how SEWA International, a charity with links
to the British wing of the Hindu fundamentalist RSS, gathers donations after natural
disasters and uses them for the political purposes of the Hindu Right. In the United
States, the name of a popular Christian Evangelist television show co-hosted by Jim
Bakker and Tammy Faye, The PTL Club, was meant to be an abbreviation for “Praise the
Lord” and also “People that Love”, but was more cynically known as “Pass the Loot”.3 In
1989, Bakker, an Assemblies of God Minister, was convicted for fraud and conspiring to
defraud congregations of $158 million, and sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Public resources are also diverted to fundamentalist movements for political and
personal use. In 2003, Mexican civil society organizations monitoring funds assigned
to women’s programmes by the Chamber of Deputies discovered that 30 million pesos4
earmarked for HIV/AIDS care had been allocated to Provida, an extreme Right group
opposed to the government’s health policies on HIV and sexual health. The group
was found to have spent over 80% of the funds on publicity challenging emergency
contraception. Also, listed under the budget item “support for women”, they had
purchased a range of items such as Mont Blanc pens, high-end clothing, and thongs
and brassieres.5

The self-declared moral superiority of religious fundamentalists must be challenged
wherever they engage in outright illegal behaviour, such as extracting protection money
from nightclub owners in Indonesia or from matatu (local mini-buses) routes in Kenya.
Examples of criminal activities by religious fundamentalists cover a broad scope. In
the United States, an internal bartering system allows access to services that avoids
taxation, as well as active tax evasion, while in North Africa, fundamentalists are often
involved in the black market, drugs, trafficking and smuggling. As one women’s rights
activist observes, “some drug barons and smugglers help finance the Islamists as a
way of buying a passport to paradise, while others may lend financial support out of
pragmatism, in the event that these political groups one day come to power”. (Rabea
Naciri, Morocco)

The fundamentalists have no hesitation in getting involved in
the black market, smuggling and all kinds of trafficking. In fact,
they state that they are least bothered about the law of the land
because they are not living in an Islamic state governed by the
Sharia. (survey respondent, Algeria)
Religious fundamentalist groups are also not as politically “clean” as they claim:
While they may not have a history of having their noses in the
trough as much as other mainstream political parties, they
certainly have engaged in massive abuse of power by putting
their own party people in positions that they’re not remotely
qualified to be in – that is nepotism too. (Sara Hossain,
Bangladesh)

At some level, women’s rights activists themselves seem to have accepted
fundamentalist rhetoric on certain social justice issues. For example, 39% of women’s
rights activists state that religious fundamentalists campaign in favour of reducing
corruption. But when asked to give actual examples of religious fundamentalist
campaigning, only two out of 657 examples even mention campaigning on corruption
– and these simply name the Cameroonian Catholic Church and the Pentecostal
Fellowship of Nigeria without giving any details. As one women’s rights activist from
Mexico notes, “[w]hile they appear to be in favour of democracy and against corruption,
their actions are diametrically opposed”.
_____________

Religious fundamentalisms do not occupy
the moral high ground!
In several countries where Catholic fundamentalisms are active, women’s rights
activists report the use of deception in fundamentalist anti-abortion strategies and
campaigns to control sexuality. Notices in the small advertisements sections in
newspapers offer telephone help-lines to young women seeking abortion: “If you’re
pregnant, call us!” When a woman calls, she finds herself talking to people who are
trained by Provida, an Opus Dei linked organization,6 who try to convince her to
keep the baby and who embark on manipulative “psychological treatment”.
In Uganda, Solome Nakaweesi-Kimbugwe remarks that Christian fundamentalists,
with an excessive emphasis on sexual “morality” and gender norms, and relative
silence on structural inequality and government corruption, are starting to get
caught in their own doublespeak. When Nsaba Butoro, Minister for Ethics and
Integrity, banned a conference on sex workers’ human rights, there were a number
of critical responses from the public. For example, a Ugandan pastor wrote in the
government-owned New Vision newspaper: “A big moral problem that inflicts society
in Uganda is not so much that prostitution is not immoral, but the high moralistic
accent in our society seems to absolve those who daily swindle the public of
exorbitant sums of money while they want to hunt down prostitutes!”7
Religious fundamentalists also spread rumours designed to build popular opposition
or support for legislative reforms. For example, Christian fundamentalist groups in
Nigeria mobilized opinion against the Reproductive Health Institutions Bill by calling
it “the Abortion Bill”, even though the Bill made no mention of abortion at all. In
Morocco, fundamentalists have misinformed people about the new family law. They
claim that the law requires that women obtain a male guardian’s consent to marry,
and that upon divorce a woman is automatically entitled to half of a man’s wealth;
as a result, young girls do not trust the new law and men are delaying or avoiding
marriage.

[Hindu fundamentalists] are claiming that Christian charities
are undertaking forceful conversion – this is why most of the
states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party have framed laws
against this. [This] is basically anti-democracy and anyone
from minority [communities] can be booked under [these
laws] on one or [an]other pretext. The whisper campaign that
goes on through their volunteers across the rural areas is
really frightening. (survey respondent, India)
Language is also used in subtle and deceptive ways, with religious fundamentalists
adopting progressive terms and discourses. For example, since the 1995 Beijing
World Conference on Women, religious fundamentalists in Argentina have
started to use the word “gender” without changing the content of their vision. In
Africa, Christian fundamentalists have selectively referred to science to “prove”
that condoms “do not work” against HIV. The use of double discourse is another
common strategy: French feminist Caroline Fourest has also exposed this pattern
among Muslim fundamentalists, who say one thing to an outside audience and the
opposite to their followers.

Operating front organizations is also a common fundamentalist practice. In Poland,
as one women’s rights activist notes, “[i]t’s not just that church organizations are
creating NGOs, but that they are using the possibility of being treated as NGOs”. A
similar dynamic emerges in Bangladesh, where religious fundamentalists have “very
intelligently understood that you have to position yourself in a particular way within
civil society. Being a religious party is one way, but getting your people into nondenominational
positions is [also] important. It’s crucial for an Islamist party to have an
organization called, for example, the ‘Centre for Human Rights’, which doesn’t sound
affiliated with a religion or any political wing, but actually has people who are nothing but
members of a fundamentalist party who will then push their agenda through that space.”
(Sara Hossain, Bangladesh)

Some doubt the motives even when they do appear to take a positive stand:
Even though all religions support the values and mechanisms
[that] promote female foeticide, they officially or superficially
condemn the practice so as to be politically correct, while
doing nothing to address the causes. Addressing the problem
superficially is like pruning a diseased tree while at the same
irrigating the roots for it to flourish. (survey respondent, India)
According to women’s rights activists, there is a sharp contrast between active
fundamentalist campaigning on issues such as abstinence and against LGBTQI
rights, and their significant silences regarding the plague of violence against women.
The failure to publicly condemn religious figures guilty of sexual abuse or defrauding
followers has raised questions about the moral commitment of religious authorities. For
example, the Catholic Church was widely criticized for attempting to conceal cases of
sexual abuse of minors by priests; bishops who had knowledge of cases of abuse opted
not to remove those accused, but rather to reassign them. In 2001, a number of highprofile
lawsuits were finally filed in the United States, and while some priests resigned,
others were defrocked or imprisoned, or negotiated financial settlements with victims.
Yet, in the face of scandal and hypocrisy, religious fundamentalist movements have
demonstrated a surprising resilience. Within the Christian Right, for example, frequent
sexual abuse and corruption scandals involving high-profile televangelists have not
brought about the downfall of the movement.

Myth #7: Religious fundamentalisms stand for the poor and the downtrodden
The myth and how it works
With slight variations according to context, religious fundamentalisms claim to stand for
the rights of the poor and the downtrodden, for “justice for the little guy”, or to be anti-awid
capitalist and anti-globalization.

In many ways their language is the language of the Left: very antiimperialist
and based on social justice. They ran under the banner
of the Sharia, which in the mind of Muslims, in their religious
belief, in their popular belief, is synonymous with justice and
equality. (Ziba Mir-Hosseini, United Kingdom/Iran)

In today’s world, where state institutions are failing to provide for communities, and
there is a growing gap between rich and poor, between and within nations, flying the
banner of justice is a powerful means of gaining support for the fundamentalist cause.
Nearly 70% of women’s rights activists say religious fundamentalists actively recruit in
community centres in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The claim to stand for justice
also gives religious fundamentalist movements significant legitimacy among external
organizations, such as foreign donor agencies, which can have concrete results.
Nearly half of women’s rights activists report that bilateral and multilateral donors
as well as international NGO donors are a significant source of funding for religious
fundamentalisms in their context, and 34% say that international development aid and
post-disaster relief has actually strengthened fundamentalisms.
Religious fundamentalisms are bad for the poor!

The rhetorical campaigning of fundamentalist groups must be measured against
their concrete actions and impacts. Evangelical Christian sects active in communities
in Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Central and Eastern Europe and the
Newly Independent States provide food as well as employment and educational
opportunities to disaffected groups, encouraging a movement toward personal renewal
and deliverance rather than a challenge to structural inequality. Revealing the common
threads among fundamentalist strategies, women from Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey
and Uzbekistan argue that religious fundamentalisms thrive on the lack of economic
opportunities for youth, especially young men, by providing them with services and
resources to meet basic needs – rather than supporting them to challenge the root
causes of injustice in their communities.

They do not eliminate the causes of poverty or create the
conditions for development, but rather, they give donations to
homeless people without creating sources of income. [They] only
combat immediate hunger and cold, without attacking the roots
of poverty, even with their great capacity to create opportunities.
(survey respondent, Argentina)

Contrary to the claims of religious fundamentalist movements, women’s rights activists
provide no concrete examples of religious fundamentalist campaigning against
capitalism and neoliberalism. Instead, they offer many concrete examples of the links
between religious fundamentalists, global and local business, and neoliberalism.

The Christian Right has played a major role in undermining public
support for policies and federal programs that lift the poor out of
poverty. Economic and social conservatives invest in the Christian
Right in part because Christian Right leaders have been willing to
build arguments that undermine biblical teachings on economic
justice. This includes undermining Catholic social teaching, which
has traditionally made the case for public policies that work for the
common good, the poor and oppressed. (Jennifer Butler, United
States)

Although Muslim fundamentalisms – more than other fundamentalisms – are credited
with campaigning against capitalism and neoliberalism, some perspective is needed. In
fact, only a minority (35%) of women’s rights activists focusing on the Middle East and
North Africa region feel that Muslim fundamentalisms campaign against these forces.
Moreover, does their campaigning actually oppose inequitable economic structures, or
just the economic policies of “the West”?

Women’s rights activists observe that religious fundamentalisms undermine the
economic security of impoverished communities, not only by encouraging passive
acceptance of present economic structures, but also by demanding contributions
from congregations. Examples include the almost mandatory diezmos (10% of
earned income) expected by Evangelical churches in Guatemala, and tithes
demanded in Ghana. Both the Governor of Khartoum in Sudan, influenced by Muslim
fundamentalisms, and the state government of Bavaria in Germany, influenced by the
Catholic Church, have barred women from working in public places or withdrawn public
childcare facilities and access to abortion. The notions of “honour” and “family values”
that were used actually exposed entire families to poverty and economic dependence.
In many regions, religious fundamentalisms impact on the intersections of gender and
class, and deepen the economic exploitation of marginalized women. In Australia,
the men’s movement, supported primarily by wealthy and influential Christian
fundamentalists, successfully lobbied the federal government to remove Single Parent
Pension once a child turns five. This forced many women who were full-time caregivers
into low-paid labour, in a context where changes to industrial relations laws have
decimated labour rights.

We have seen the rise of a new aristocracy, often older wealthy
white males on their second or third wife, and of a new servant
class of maids, housekeepers and nannies – predominantly poor
women and single mothers. Single mothers have become the new
social lepers. (survey respondent, Australia)
Religious fundamentalisms promote
discrimination and target the marginalized!

Normally in human rights and development language, to stand for justice is
understood as promoting and protecting the right to non-discrimination and the rights
of the marginalized. In contrast, 59% of women’s rights activists say that religious
fundamentalists frequently target LGBTQI people for verbal and physical violence. They
also obstruct positive developments: for example, the Fijian Methodist Church opposed
provisions protecting common law couples and same-sex couples in the draft 2002
Family Law Bill. Indeed, campaigning against LGBTQI rights seems to unite religious
fundamentalists across boundaries: “The campaign against the Pride Parade (LGBTQI)
in Jerusalem was led by all the religious leaders of all religions in Israel.”
Strikingly similar comments come from women’s rights activists in the Christianmajority
United States and in Britain’s Muslim community, which highlight how religious
fundamentalists, far from protecting marginalized groups such as LGBTQI, have instead
exploited homophobia.

This rightwing coalition has really latched on to and invented
homophobia in the U.S. as a way to build its base, drawing on
literal interpretations of the Bible. George Bush rallied the whole
anti-gay marriage crowd in the 2004 elections in a way that gave
him the narrowest majority against all those people who thought
that lying to get us into a war, promoting torture, devastating
civil rights and liberties, running up a $400 billion deficit was a
problem. He was able to convince a cohort of people… that gay
marriage was more of a problem than all of that. So, you have
this homophobic wedge that has been carefully cultivated and
developed. (Mab Segrest, United States)

Religious fundamentalisms frequently operate in conjunction with ethnic
fundamentalisms, for example in Sri Lanka where Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism has
contributed to a long-running civil war. At times, religious fundamentalisms sustain racist
attitudes.

[Since the 1990s] an interesting thing has happened: first, there
has been a convergence of the rightwing of some, not all, but
some of the religious Zionist rightwing and some of the ultraorthodox.
There is now a new phenomenon called ultra-orthodox
nationalist, and in my opinion, they combine the worst features
of the two groups because religiously they are very similar to the
ultra-orthodox – they have all the anti-modernist, anti-democratic,
to some extent anti-feminist features of ultra-orthodox – but they
also have the army, they have guns, they have a racist ideology. I
am very worried about them. (Debbie Weissman, Israel)
One women’s rights activist from Australia eloquently describes how Christian
abolitionism works as a form of racist oppression:
The influence of a growing Christian fundamentalist morality
has underpinned, in subtle ways, the recent commonwealth
government intervention in Aboriginal communities in the Northern
Territory of Australia. All Aboriginal people are being taken off
employment programs and placed on welfare programs, to make it
easier to control the income expenditure of individuals in the form
of vouchers, goods, etc. While intended to reduce alcohol abuse
and illegal activities, and increase school attendance, it punishes
everyone to get at those doing the wrong thing. It diminishes
individual dignity, self-determination and control over daily life. It
doubly punishes women for the violence and alcoholism of their
men. It is an inherently racist solution to a very complex problem.
(survey respondent, Australia)

Although in some contexts, religious fundamentalisms are seen as a form of resistance
to dominant power structures, they clearly recruit among the powerful and the elite,
seeking out the most influential and intellectual, such as Opus Dei’s recruitment within
professional associations of doctors, lawyers and engineers.

Religious fundamentalist campaigning on “people-centred” issues needs to be examined
taking the impact of their projects into account. On a number of issues that many in the
human rights and development spheres or progressive circles would regard as central
to social justice (poverty reduction, corruption, democracy, political pluralism, freedom of
speech), there is a distinct gap between the relatively large proportion of women’s rights
activists who feel that fundamentalist campaigning on these issues is “pro-people”, and
the small number of concrete examples of such campaigning that they can pinpoint. In
contrast, across the research, women’s rights activists provided numerous and detailed
examples of concrete fundamentalist campaigning that seeks to restrict human rights,
and cited over 600 examples of the negative impact of religious fundamentalisms.
Religious fundamentalisms are anti-women!

Women are one of the marginalized groups that religious fundamentalisms most
frequently target – in their rhetoric, campaigning, as well as verbal and physical attacks
on the ground. For women’s rights activists, being “patriarchal and anti-women” is the
second most common characteristic of religious fundamentalisms after “absolutist
and intolerant”. As one women’s rights activist puts it, “[f]or [the] Buddhist practitioner
enlightenment is the highest… So when someone [tells] you ‘You cannot reach this
because you are a woman and are in the wrong body’ that to me is the most harmful to a
human being”. (Ouyporn Khuankaew, Thailand)

The targeting of women by religious fundamentalists is widespread, and there are no
significant differences according to region or religion. Seventy-seven percent of women’s
rights activists say women are frequently or sometimes targeted for verbal or physical
attack; that is, women are exposed to fundamentalist violence simply because they are
women. As an extreme example of the violence, Hindu fundamentalists in India have
encouraged the revitalization of the practice of sati (act of self-immolation of widows on
their husbands’ funeral pyres).

Fundamentalist groups and institutions exhibit
a clear double standard in their expectations
of men and women. Under the influence of
the Orthodox Church in Georgia, women who
have premarital sex, take birth control pills, use
condoms or undergo abortions are condemned
and often rejected by their families and
communities, while there is virtual silence with
regard to the men involved.
Religious fundamentalisms are obsessed with
sexual and reproductive rights, women’s dress
and mobility, women’s “morality” and freedom of
sexual expression – although in different regions
and religions they may emphasize one or other
issue more strongly.
In Pakistan, religious fundamentalists led
a vigorous campaign inside and outside
Parliament to prevent the repeal of the highly
discriminatory Hudood Ordinances governing
rape, adultery and various other sexual crimes,
while in Malaysia, they led a campaign to
introduce such laws. One women’s rights activist
describes how the Catholic fundamentalist
former Mayor of Manila, Philippines promised
to make the city the “first pro-God city in Asia”,
at the cost of women’s rights: he did away with
family planning services and harassed NGOs
that dared to provide services clandestinely.
Young women’s bodies are particularly targeted.
In Nigeria, virginity testing has been introduced
as a precondition to academic scholarships or
graduation by some Christian colleges, while in
Nicaragua, one women’s rights activist reports
that due to campaigns against condom use
and lack of information about sexuality, “AIDS
among adolescent women has increased 175%
over the last four years”. (Ana María Pizarro,
Nicaragua)

Muslim fundamentalists have focused on
dress codes. For example, when districtlevel
autonomy in 2004 enabled religious
fundamentalists to dominate local laws in
Indonesia:
The broader impact on health and
development
AWID’s research reveals the broader negative
impact of religious fundamentalisms on
community health and development. More than a
third of women’s rights activists regard religious
fundamentalisms as actually obstructing work
on HIV and AIDS, and the figure is much higher
when focused on Pentecostal and charismatic
forms of Christianity.
The current First Lady of [a Sub-
Saharan African country] is a Born Again
Christian…[She] is using her position
to organize virginity parades, preach
abstinence, discredit condoms and warn
men not to marry women who have HIV.
(Anonymous)

Muslim fundamentalists in Nigeria and India, for
example, have opposed polio vaccinations as a
“plot” to introduce AIDS or to sterilize Muslims.
In Pakistan, a fundamentalist campaign against
polio vaccinations resulted in the murder of five
health workers in less than two years, with polio
levels subsequently rising in the Northern Areas.
In June 1995, Cardinal Obando was able
to stop tetanus vaccinations, using the
same argument that the Vatican had used
in the Philippines, Bolivia and Mexico,
that the vaccination contained a sterilizing
agent. Where did the idea come from?
From the advisor to the Minister for Life,
Dr. Rafael Cabrera, the President of
ANPROVIDA, Asociación Nicaragüense
Provida (Nicaraguan Pro-Life
Association). When it was shown to be
untrue and they began vaccinating again,
five weeks had passed and vaccination
refusal rates, which had been zero, had
risen to 33%. Girls were left without the
vaccine because the Catholic radios that
reach the far corners of the country were
saying that you didn’t have to vaccinate
them. And that’s how we ended up with
400,000 unvaccinated women. (Ana
María Pizarro, Nicaragua)

The first thing to be regulated was women. The Wilayat ul-Hisbah
[morality police] are not challenging the market economy or
poverty but ‘morality’: Women feel they are disproportionately
targeted, with more operations against them for not wearing jilbab
[headscarves] than against men for not attending Friday prayers.
The Padang municipal administration issued a bylaw requiring all
schoolgirls, regardless of their religion, to wear the jilbab. (Kamala
Chandrakirana, Indonesia)

But the focus on dress codes is not limited to Muslim fundamentalisms. In Montreal,
Canada, Hasidic communities campaigned for frosted glass to be put up in the YMCA
windows across the street so that congregations would not have to see women
exercising, while a regional-religious political party in power in South India insisted on
college girls not wearing trousers and shirts, arguing that it distracts male lecturers.
The impact of religious fundamentalisms on women sometimes requires subtle
contextual analysis and a holistic perspective. For example, in India, the Hindu
fundamentalist-influenced Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) “proposed a domestic violence
bill but it was very patriarchal. As a strategy, they were fighting against domestic violence
but not [for] women’s empowerment as women’s rights advocates would understand it”
(Anasuya Sengupta, India).

Do these projects respect women’s moral rights and foster
women’s moral agency? Yes or no? Where they don’t do this, it
must be said – no matter what else they do that is good. (Frances
Kissling, United States)

Very often, religious fundamentalist movements give a sense of
empowerment to women; not necessarily a sense of oppression.
However, all this is within a framework within which all the overall
decisions – the overall control – is determined by men. For me,
more worrying than the dramatic things are these effects, which
are more pervasive. (Nira Yuval-Davis, United Kingdom/Israel)

Myth #8: Religious fundamentalisms are familyfriendly and pro-life
The myth and how it works
Religious fundamentalist movements claim to be pro-family and pro-life. This strengthens
the fundamentalist claim that their vision is “natural” and morally sound – in apparent
contrast to the vision of those who resist and challenge religious fundamentalisms.
Such campaigns and rhetoric also enable them to attract desperate followers in
desperate times: in the United States, the Christian Right’s emphasis on the importance
of the “traditional” family (father-breadwinner/mother-homemaker) plays upon the
genuine economic and social exhaustion people now face in raising a family as
compared to the 1950s.

A narrow vision of the family!
Religious fundamentalisms promote a dominant, male-centered, patriarchal and
heteronormative model of the family. According to a substantial majority of women’s
rights activists (85%), presenting rigid gender roles within the family as “natural” is an
important religious fundamentalist strategy, across regions and religions. In countries as
diverse as Peru and Pakistan, this strategy is now being tactically modernized through
the discourse of the “complimentarity” of gender, where religious fundamentalists seek
to replace the language of equality with references to equity. For example, the REAL
Women of Canada organization promotes a subservient domestic role for women as a
means of ensuring happy families and peaceful communities.

In many cases, this strategy moves beyond discourse and into law, obstructing positive
developments in women’s rights. In South Africa and Fiji, pressure from religious
fundamentalists watered down the rights to be extended to women in drafted reforms
of family laws. In Morocco, religious fundamentalists were determined to promote a
family model that does not respond to people’s needs, but rather, reasserts control
over women; one survey respondent cites the “spectacular campaigns using cassettes,
intimidation, etc. against the National Plan for the Integration of Women in Development.
Out of the Plan’s 214 points, the eight points dealing with the Family Code raised an
unprecedented reaction from religious fundamentalists”.

This strategy preempts reforms to family laws that could introduce more equal spousal
relationships and thereby happier – and less violent – families. In Egypt and Ireland, for
example, religious fundamentalists stigmatize divorced women and resist any relaxation
in divorce laws that would enable more women to escape abusive and unhappy
marriages.

Restrictive and unfair divorce laws and welfare reforms are
frequently proposed by the Christian fundamentalists – measures
that would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for women to
leave lethal relationships. (Hope Chigudu, Zimbabwe/Uganda)
It is a human tragedy when a woman whose marriage is no longer
a reality is prevented from getting a divorce and continuing on with
her life, especially if her marriage is abusive. (Debbie Weissman,
Israel)

Women’s rights activists in Uzbekistan and Thailand report that Muslim fundamentalisms
have brought about an increase in polygamy, which undermines the financial, emotional
and sexual rights of married women. Current large-scale research in Malaysia is also
uncovering long-lasting damage to children in polygamous marriages. In the Nigerian

National Assembly, Muslim fundamentalists campaigned against the passing of a law
that would outlaw early marriage and polygamy, claiming that it offends their religion.
This campaign received silent support from other fundamentalists in Nigeria: “Other men
could predict that the Muslims would oppose it. Although Muslims are the majority who
practice polygamy, it is also rampant among the Ibo in the south-east where people are
99% Christian/traditional religion.” (survey respondent, Nigeria)

Religious fundamentalist campaigning and mobilization to oppose same-sex marriage
and adoption rights for LGBTQI people can also be seen as denying the right to family
life. This high social cost is the price paid by a targeted community for cynical political
mobilization by religious fundamentalists. One women’s rights activist from Fiji recalls
“[t]he marches last year and the year before against gay marriage [occurred] after
hearing of progressive changes overseas despite no real call yet in Fiji for gay marriage
as most LGBTQI are just trying to retain basic human rights!” Similarly, in Nigeria, mass
mobilization by church groups in 2006 supported an opportunistic bill presented by the
President that included the prohibition of gay marriage in the country.
Whose life is worth protecting?

The religious fundamentalist vision of being “pro-life” is highly selective. In this view, the
lives of women that are endangered or lost to unsafe pregnancies do not matter. The
organization Women on Waves estimates that every eight minutes, a woman dies from
an unsafe abortion – this is often due to poverty and a lack of access to services, but
also due to the success of religious fundamentalisms in criminalizing abortion.
In Africa, Christian Seventh Day Adventists promote early marriage to ensure virginity.
An obstetric professional who responded to the AWID survey reports that to escape
the devastating health impacts of early and frequent pregnancies, these young
women are often compelled to resort to unsafe abortion procedures, and develop
related health complications. “They are shunned by healthcare facilities affiliated with
religious fundamentalists, and often (if they survive abortion-related infections) develop
secondary infertility due to scarring of the Fallopian tubes and/or other reproductive
organs, at which point they are abandoned by husbands and families.” In the United
States, Australia and Canada, religious fundamentalists have committed murder or
attempted murder of staff during attacks at clinics offering abortion services.
By replacing terms such as “women” with “mother” and “foetus” with “viable unborn
baby”, they have made the rights of women and their offspring appear possible to
separate and prioritize, one over the other. In Argentina, abortion is only possible
through a court declaration, either if the mother’s life is deemed to be in danger or she
is mentally incompetent. One women’s rights activist recalls a case where “[y]oung
mentally disabled women and teens were raped, and because the doctors and lawyers
were daily threatened, and the young women and their families harassed, it led to a
delay of up to six months in their case. Some had spontaneous abortions and others
had to bring the baby to term anyway”. (Angelica Peñas, Argentina)

As a subset of this strategy, religious fundamentalisms often selectively and emotively
appear “pro-child”, but they do not recognize some children’s rights to their views and
individuality:
There was a campaign against abortion consisting of distributing
bottles or soothers to schoolchildren, and my daughter was very
young at the time (12 years old). The teacher berated her in front
of her school chums because she wouldn’t take the soother since
she supported women having free choice. The teacher told her
that if she was in favour of abortion, she’d be better off taking a
gun and shooting at the little kindergarteners – it would be more
humane because at least the little kids might have a fighting
chance, whereas a foetus can’t run away. (survey respondent,
Spain)
The fundamentalists teach things like eating with the left hand
is the devil’s work. This gets integrated into regular school texts,
making problems for left-handed children. When I questioned my
children’s school, [the teacher] said, “Well what can we do about
it, we have to”. (Farida Shaheed, Pakistan)

Myth #9: Religious fundamentalisms defend our
traditional ways and authentic identities
The myth and how it works
Religious fundamentalisms spend a great deal of energy – and money – proclaiming
and at times violently insisting that they are the “one true church”, or that theirs is “pure
Islam”, or “correct Buddhist practice”. Although this may be contested from within the
religion, this claimed authenticity can sometimes be hard for ordinary believers within the
religion and outsiders to challenge. The emphasis on “true meaning” removes human
experience and diversities of time and place from the equation.

At the same time, in many contexts, religious fundamentalisms also claim to be the
authentic guardians of local culture, and adhering to their tenets supposedly serves to
resist domination by “foreign”, “alien” or “westernized” forces. Thus, the website of the
Bajrang Dal – the Hindu fundamentalist Vishva Hindu Parishad’s youth wing – says its
“warrior” members “swear in the name of Lord Hanuman to always remain prepared
to protect our country, religion and culture”. A substantial majority of women’s rights
activists (79%) see an emphasis on religion as a feature of national identity as important
to religious fundamentalist strategies. AWID found numerous examples from Africa,
Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, and Central, South and
Southeast Asia, where ethno-nationalist-cultural supremacist ideologies are impossible
to separate from religious fundamentalisms:

In Uzbekistan, there is a tendency of restoring national identities
and national values, and that cannot be separated from re-
Islamization. In Kazakhstan, there [are] similar and very strong
tendencies of national identity that go hand in hand with reviving
Islam and retrieving ancient traditions and customs. The majority
of these customs are related to women’s rights. (Eleonora
Fayzullaeva, Uzbekistan)

It is contradictory to some extent that religious fundamentalisms are able both to
claim a universally correct interpretation as well as a position as the guardians of local
cultural authenticity and “tradition”. But both myths operate together as two sides of the
same coin with the combined result that diverse and progressive interpretations are
delegitimized and made invisible, a monopoly of interpretation arises, and ultimately
absolutist fundamentalist perspectives gain greater political and social influence.
Religious fundamentalisms reinvent tradition!

Fundamentalist trends emerged in religions at a common historical moment: in the early
1900s, Christians who opposed theological liberalization in the United States started
calling themselves “fundamentalists”; in 1912, in Poland, World Agudath Israel (World
Jewish Union) was founded; in 1925, the Hindu fundamentalist Rashtriya Swayamsewak
Sangh was founded; and in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt and
Opus Dei was founded in Spain. In other words, the groups we most readily identify as
religious fundamentalists today did not exist up until about 100 years ago. Whatever
tradition they claim to protect has had to be isolated from a more pluralist historical
tradition within the religion, rebuilt or in some cases invented from scratch.
From countries as diverse as Nigeria and Bangladesh, women’s rights activists provide
almost identical descriptions of a globally homogenized fundamentalist “uniform”,
claimed to be “authentic Islam” but at odds with the local environment and traditions:
I was told by colleagues who visited [the areas] in Greater
Rajshahi, which were reportedly then dominated by the JMB
(Jamaat ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh), [that] not only was every
single woman in a full, black burqa, but in the baking sun, they had
gloves on and socks on. We’re talking about poor, rural women.
(Sara Hossain, Bangladesh)

In Yola, where it’s really hot, you started having total cover-up:
with socks on and gloves, and only their eyes not covered. When
I was growing up, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference
between a Muslim woman/child and [anyone else]. (Asma’u Joda,
Nigeria)

Where cultures have traditionally been plural, religious fundamentalisms have introduced
new, monolithic visions of the religion. Darfuri imams and religious authorities were given
training by the Sudanese ruling National Islamic Front, which led to a shift away from
previously relatively relaxed attitudes towards pre-marital relationships and women’s
bodies:

When I was a schoolgirl, we’d go and swim and wash ourselves
in the valley, wash [our] clothes, spread them on the grass. If any
boy or man came and looked, they never looked at you as some
sexual subject: it was just normal. Nowadays everyone has a
shower very far from the open air. We are not feeling comfortable,
it’s not us, not real. (Eiman Abulgasim Seifeldin, Darfur/Sudan)

Religious fundamentalisms are transnational, not local!
While religious fundamentalists may claim to represent local cultural authenticity, they
have introduced a homogenized culture that reflects true cultural globalization. Catholic
Church announcements against abortion and their promotion of large families on the
radio in Puerto Rico are broadcast in non-Puerto Rican accents, indicating that they are
developed and broadcast all over Latin America. The promotion of “the Argentine family”
by religious fundamentalists in Argentina is questionably “local”, since the materials are
provided by the Vatican in Rome. Meanwhile, women’s rights activists in North Africa are
highly critical of the culturally and religiously monolithic vision promoted by Al-Jazeera’s
Arabic language television broadcasts across the region and beyond.

Although the Saudi and US governments and Opus Dei are among the most frequently
mentioned international linkages, the scope of transnational religious fundamentalist
ties is far broader and is governmental as well as non-governmental. It includes
the presence of US Mormons and Adventists in the Philippines; state-sponsored
Libyan funding for Muslim organizations in Benin and Chad; the affiliation of Focus
on the Family in Canada with its counterpart in the United States; and the Rashtriya
Savayamsevak Sangh’s ties with the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh in Holland. Human
Life International (HLI) is a coalition of pro-life groups in many countries that is strongly
backed by conservative groups in the United States and supported by some parts of the
Catholic leadership, through organizations such as the Pontifical Council for the Family.
International links often have a direct impact on local policy:

The final version [of the national human rights plan in Peru] was
approved on 30th November 2005. The plan, which had been
agreed to by a wide group of organizations (civil society and
governmental), was arbitrarily cut, leaving only four of the 16
affirmative actions that had been agreed on… Afterwards, we
found out from people inside that Republican Senators in the
United States had exerted a lot of pressure – politicians that
belonged to fundamentalist groups like Opus Dei or the Society of
Apostolic Life. (Roxana Vásquez Sotelo, Peru)

Religious fundamentalisms operate not only transnationally, but also at the level of
international fora. They promote a globalized and homogenous “religious” view that
rolls back the normalization in international standards of women’s bodily autonomy, and
freedom of sexuality and belief. As one women’s rights activist remarks:
[t]here are some strategies that are very evident to those of
us doing advocacy work internationally and it is clear in the
last decade, this is related to transnationalization of religious
fundamentalisms and creation of religious institutions that didn’t
exist before. The New York-based Catholic Family and Human
Rights Institute (C-Fam) is specifically focused on blocking
anything to do with women’s rights at the UN. These institutions
appeared in the last ten years and are a clear strategy for
advocacy in spaces related to public policy in the international
realm. (Lydia Alpízar, Costa Rica)

“Authenticity” and the “local” are also highly selective concepts that often distort
history. One women’s rights activist points out that “[t]he Northern missionary origins of
Christianity in Africa are often forgotten in favour of a characterization of ‘African’ morals
and traditions as Christian morals and traditions”. This raises the question of who has the
power to define what is “authentic”, and for what purposes.

In the Middle East and South Asia, religious fundamentalists frequently denounce
women’s and human rights activists for being “Western”, and yet they receive funding
from overseas development aid for disaster relief. There is similar hypocrisy in Latin
America:

In Brazil, a journalist tried to find out about [pro-life groups] money
and was threatened. This gives us an idea of the importance to
them of maintaining the secrecy of their financial business. One
of the arguments used against us feminists is that they say the
funding is from the first world, from the United States, that it is
imperialism. But they need to keep their secrets because their
money comes from there too. (Maria José Rosado-Nunes, Brazil)

Myth #10: Religious fundamentalisms are invincible
The myth and how it works
In many contexts, religious fundamentalist movements have been able to command
attention from national and foreign governments as well as other political actors on the
basis of a claim that they are a significant social and political force. This can lead to
a presumption that religious fundamentalists are legitimate commentators or political
allies on matters of public policy, and can also lead to greater funding opportunities for
fundamentalist groups.

While the influence of religious fundamentalists cannot be dismissed, some women’s
rights activists, including those who have lived under religious fundamentalist regimes
or who have spent their activist lives focusing on the phenomenon, warn against
overstating the impact. They point out that exaggerating the impact can give religious
fundamentalisms greater credit, legitimacy or power than they deserve. A balanced
assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of religious fundamentalisms and
recognition of the broader context in which social and political forces operate will also
facilitate more effective strategies to resist and challenge religious fundamentalisms.
Are religious fundamentalisms really so
successful?

Religious fundamentalist projects are not, in fact, as successful as they would like us to
believe.
We must not look at fundamentalism as a very successful
movement. The reformists in Iran have lost the political battle –
they’re not in government. But they had one much more important
lasting success, which is that they took away this aura of religiosity
from politics. Using the language of Sharia no longer works in Iran.
The [reformists] have managed to separate understandings of
Islam from absolutism and patriarchy. These changes eventually
will reflect themselves in the institutions of power. (Ziba Mir-
Hosseini, United Kingdom/Iran)

Another angle takes the vehemence of religious fundamentalisms as a sign of the
failure of their ideology. In one opinion, “[w]hen they see in the United Nations the
representatives of 192 states sitting around a table talking about sexual orientation, it’s
absolutely mind-boggling to them.” She argues that because the goals of women’s rights
activists are far higher than what has been achieved thus far, we may not realize how
radical these social and political developments appear to fundamentalists. “With a variety
of dominant countries starting to permit gay marriage, having legalized abortion, talking
about women as equal to men, it appears that all that they believe in has been rejected.
So I think in the macro sense and in the battle for hearts and minds, they have largely
lost – it is over.” (Frances Kissling, United States)

The experiences of women’s rights activists on the ground also indicate that religious
fundamentalisms in various contexts have not always been successful, partly because
social issues and developments are not necessarily in their control, and partly because
of the strength and resolve of their opposition. In Kano, Nigeria, a Sharia state, a
woman who stood for political office in 2007 was beaten up, but then went to court to
seek redress. “Nothing is going to stop them,” remarks one women’s rights activist,
“even when they are beaten up. Religion isn’t stopping them from speaking out about
discrimination within the political party.”

Other women’s rights activists note the importance of looking beyond rhetorical
victories to see what is happening in reality. US funding for HIV/AIDS work is tied to
conditionalities around sex work, abortion and abstinence, but some governments (such
as Brazil) have simply refused to accept such funds. Many organizations, on the other
hand, have signed the commitment – without having any intention of respecting it and
intend to carry on providing the services they had agreed to stop. Since fundamentalist
projects overlook social realities, their campaigns often fail to impact. A campaign by the
Indonesian PKS (Partai Keadilan Sejahtera/Prosperous Justice Party), a fundamentalist
Muslim political party, emphasized the importance of women being housewives and
staying at home to raise their children, but it was doomed to failure because it ignored
the fact that a large number of poor Indonesian women are overseas migrant labourers.
The promise that followers will attain wealth, prosperity and happiness has contributed
to the apparent popularity of the new wave of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian
fundamentalisms in Africa. But women’s rights activists from the region note this means
that new recruits, less interested in doctrine, can turn away from fundamentalist groups
as quickly as they joined, if religious fundamentalists fail to deliver what was promised.
As Dora King of Sierra Leone observes, “[the new wave of] Pentecostalism is vulnerable
if the broader economic conditions are not conducive to people making the money they
want to make”. From her experience of counselling survivors of domestic violence in
Swaziland, Nonhlanhla Dlamini comments that “we have some women that have actually
stopped going to church because they have been praying for over 20 years and nothing
is happening. They think to themselves, ‘well I have been praying for so long and nothing
is happening so maybe God does not have ears for me.’”

Although women’s rights activists note the global rise of religious fundamentalisms, one
questions how far this rise is a matter of reality or changes in perceptions:
I think that religious fundamentalisms have always been
effective (take for example, the brutal religious wars in Europe
or the genocide of indigenous people on our continent, or the
Inquisition), precisely because they operate at this basic level of
human subjectivity. What has happened in the last few years is
that (i) this is our time and therefore, again due to human vanity,
what happens now seems to us unique, original, unrepeatable,
etc.; and (ii) due to the global market, we now have the ability to
learn about what is happening almost anywhere (although, not
quite everywhere) at the same time. (Alejandra Sardá, Argentina)

Religious fundamentalisms have unintended
outcomes and are sowing the seeds of their
own destruction

The very few women’s rights activists (9%) who regard religious fundamentalisms
as having a positive impact on women’s rights give responses regarding unintended
outcomes that have ultimately been beneficial to women and collective organizing for
their rights. These outcomes of religious fundamentalisms include spurring women’s
rights activists in both secular and religious movements into action towards a common
goal, and bringing issues of women’s rights into the spotlight. One women’s rights activist
comments: “The fundamentalist gender policies create a solidarity and network among
Sudanese women’s organizations and academics to counteract the biased policies
and lead awareness campaigns among women to introduce them to their political,
social and economic rights that are enshrined in both the Sudanese Constitution and
international treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW). On the other hand, the Islamist women start to develop new insights
and readings in the Islamic texts to face the fundamentalist understanding for women’s
rights.”

Religious fundamentalism has highlighted the issue of women’s
full participation in society. This includes the work of women
outside of the home, for instance, their participation and success
in the legal profession. Religious fundamentalism may not agree
with this trend, but it is this disagreement which has put the issue
of religion and female economic autonomy on the discussion table.
(survey respondent, Canada)

Some responses point to a different type of positive impact. For example, the
radicalization generated by religious fundamentalisms can drive people away from
religious traditions with authoritarian characteristics.
[Religious fundamentalisms have had] a positive impact because

in the face of the authoritarian excessiveness of the Catholic
Church on issues of abortion or sexual orientation (lesbianism),
the community of women with whom I generally work has tended
to move away from institutions in general and religious clerics who
subscribe to a discourse of zero tolerance with respect to sexual
diversity and the struggle for women’s right to abortion. (survey
respondent, Argentina)

Most importantly, religious fundamentalisms may contain within themselves the seeds
of their own destruction. The interviewees who had lived under religious fundamentalist
regimes were in many ways more optimistic about the future than those located in
contexts where fundamentalist movements have never come to political power. The first
aspect relates to the fundamentalist use of women cadres. Often these are conservative
women who previously would not have engaged religiously and politically. Given the
confidence to engage, some are now going beyond established fundamentalist texts and
approaches and finding their own paths.

The second aspect relates to the inability of religious fundamentalisms to deliver and
the exposure of their hypocrisy once in power. One women’s rights activist from Sudan
relates how “women are fed up. They see those people do everything out of Islam, such
as using Islam to sabotage the country; a lot of things that are not [in] Islam are allowed
to flourish, like this urfi zawaj [customary unregistered marriage which denies wives rights
under the law].” (Manal Abdel Halim, Sudan) She adds that people are not following the
fundamentalist government’s directives “because they know this is not something genuine”.

The excursion into Sharia has sort of diluted the Muslim
fundamentalists because they haven’t overcome corruption, and it
became obvious that they’re there for their own political gains, which
equated to making money. A few Christian states have reverends as
their governors and they really haven’t performed at all. (Asma’u Joda,
Nigeria)

Once they gain power, the very slogan of the Sharia becomes their
Achilles heel [vulnerability] because they cannot deliver. That starts
the process from within the Islamic movement for challenging their
claim. When they are not in power, they can afford to use very vague
language; you can never pin them down to have a conversation with
them. But when they gain power, they have to become specific, and
it is then that the contradictions start showing themselves. (Ziba Mir-
Hosseini, United Kingdom/Iran)

Looking ahead
The very broad geographical scope of the examples shared in this publication confirms that
while women’s rights activists have diverse experiences of religious fundamentalisms, there
are many commonalities in the myths we hold about religious fundamentalisms and the
myths they would like us to believe. At the same time, the myths are also exposed in very
similar ways across regions and religions.

We hope this publication has underlined the need for detailed empirical research and
qualitative analysis on the impacts of religious fundamentalist campaigns on the ground
and the real-life effects of their discourses on people’s human rights. Like any other political
force, and perhaps even more so given their lofty moral claims to protect society, religious
fundamentalists must be held accountable for their deeds and words. This cannot be the
work of women’s rights activists alone, and needs the involvement of all those who stand for
the promotion and protection of human rights.

One of the strengths of feminisms has been the ability to challenge dominant stereotypes
and question presumptions, in order to bring about positive change in women’s lives and in
society as a whole. As part of this process, efforts to examine in detail the myths surrounding
religious fundamentalisms will also enable women’s rights activists to learn more – from
the successes of religious fundamentalisms and from their failures. Ultimately, we hope
this will contribute to strengthened strategies of resistance and challenge to religious
fundamentalisms.

About the Resisting and Challenging Religious Fundamentalisms initiative
AWID’s Resisting and Challenging Religious Fundamentalisms initiative is an advocacy
research project that seeks to strengthen the responses to religious fundamentalisms
across regions and religions.
What we hope to achieve:
• Create strategic venues for dialogue and facilitate shared understanding among
women’s rights movements and organizations about how fundamentalisms work, grow
and undermine women’s rights;
• Develop joint strategies and advocacy efforts across regions and religions to confront
religious fundamentalisms; and
• Strengthen the capacity of women’s rights activists, advocates, organizations and
movements to challenge religious fundamentalist politics.
For more detailed information about the initiative, please visit the AWID website:
www.awid.org

Religious Fundamentalisms on the Rise: A case for action
What are the negative implications of the global rise of religious fundamentalisms for
women’s rights, human rights and development? Although the impacts of religious
fundamentalisms may be localized and context-specific, in the experience of women’s
rights advocates, the commonalities far outweigh the diversity. This publication argues
that religious fundamentalisms represent a global phenomenon that requires a concerted,
consolidated and transnational response by rights activists across all sectors.
Shared Insights: Women’s rights advocates define religious fundamentalisms
What do we mean when we speak of ‘religious fundamentalisms’? Is the term ‘religious
fundamentalisms’ a useful one for women’s rights activists? Who are the main
fundamentalist actors in the contemporary world? This publication grapples with
these questions and explores how women’s rights activists in different contexts
understand and experience this phenomenon. While religious fundamentalisms
are not easily defined, the research does point to a set of shared
characteristics and elements that hold true despite
differences across religions and religions.
www.awid.org

Shared Insights: Women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms

What do we mean by
religious fundamentalisms?
What do we mean when we speak of the phenomenon of “religious
fundamentalisms”? Is the term useful for women’s rights activists? Who are the
main fundamentalist actors in the contemporary world? By grappling with these
questions, this publication aims to understand how women’s rights activists from
different parts of the world experience and define the complex phenomenon of
religious fundamentalisms. Based on the responses of more than 1,600 individuals
to AWID’s survey in September 2007, and 51 in-depth interviews conducted by the
AWID research team, this publication aims to explore how women’s rights activists
characterize religious fundamentalisms and to reach a better understanding of their
views and experiences of the issue in various parts of the world.

In particular, this publication presents how women’s rights activists understand
religious fundamentalisms by analyzing three interrelated questions. First, how
do women’s rights activists construct or define religious fundamentalisms as a
contemporary phenomenon? Although an immense amount of analytical work has
been done on how fundamentalisms should be defined, there is much less on how
activists, particularly women’s rights activists, are actually defining it. These voices
are crucial because women’s rights activists find themselves at the centre of today’s
political struggle between those aiming to open up legal, social and cultural spaces
for pluralism and equality, and those attempting to reinforce economic, social and
political structures that reduce those spaces.

Next, this publication addresses how useful the term “religious fundamentalisms” is
for contemporary activism on women’s rights. In spite of its wide usage by activists,
academics, politicians, journalists and others, it is also a very controversial term.
To label certain institutions or groups of individuals “fundamentalist” suggests that
they share some common elements. However, is there clarity or agreement on what
these shared characteristics of fundamentalism are? Adding to the complexity is the
fact that the use of the word fundamentalist has taken on a new political dimension
– often one with racist or xenophobic undertones – in the narratives relating to war,
terrorism, security and identity after the attacks in the United States of America on
September 11th, 2001. Considering these factors, we will examine if the term is still a
useful and strategic way for women’s rights activists to define the phenomenon and
thereby collaborate in terms of effective and collective strategies.

The final part of this publication considers the main types of fundamentalist actors
as identified by women’s rights activists. The opinions and experiences of women’s
rights activists are important for identifying not only the most obvious religious
fundamentalist actors, but also those who are the most implicated when the issue
at stake is women’s rights. In the experiences of women’s rights activists, almost
all religious traditions have fundamentalist elements. They also identify a complex
picture of actors who transverse local and global, religious and secular spaces, and
operate within elite circles as well as through followers of this ideology.

The complexity and multidimensionality of religious fundamentalisms in the
contemporary world cannot be overstated. By defining religious fundamentalisms,
assessing the usefulness of the term, and identifying the main types of actors,
women’s rights activists from around the world provide invaluable insights for
understanding the phenomenon. There are significant similarities in the ways that
women’s rights activists from very different contexts characterize and experience
religious fundamentalisms. This provides an interesting basis for considering
transnational strategies and agendas in order to confront the global rise of religious
fundamentalisms.

How do women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms?
The term “fundamentalism” originated at the turn of the 20th century when a group of
militant North American Christian Evangelicals positioned themselves as fighting for
the “fundamentals of faith” in the context of the modernization of most other religious
sectors. Since its Christian origins, fundamentalism has referred to a wide variety
of groups and actors across religious traditions and regions, and applied to other
ideologies that may have nothing to do with religion. Due to the diversity of ways
that it is presently applied, the first challenge of defining religious fundamentalisms
is the difficulty – and for some the impossibility – of referring to it as a singular
phenomenon. To resolve this, some have proposed ways to classify the many
manifestations of fundamentalisms into certain types in order to avoid vague and
broad definitions, while still referring to the same political phenomenon.1 Others
consciously use the term in the plural for the same reason.

Here it may be helpful to consider “family resemblances” or similar characteristics
between different manifestations of religious fundamentalisms.2 Instead of a
broader definition seeking to capture religious fundamentalisms as a worldwide
phenomenon, the concept of family resemblances contemplates the common
features and overlapping characteristics, which may then form a similar
phenomenon. The challenge, then, is to identify what these common characteristics
are in the experiences of women’s rights activists.3

This publication presents an analysis of the most relevant and frequently cited
characteristics identified by women’s rights activists when defining religious
fundamentalisms, and maps the main elements associated with fundamentalisms in
their experiences.

Identifying shared characteristics among religious fundamentalisms
The survey responses identify the characteristics of religious fundamentalisms most
frequently mentioned by women’s rights activists asked to define the phenomenon.
Eight main identifiers cover most of the survey responses. These characteristics hold
true despite differences across regions and religions.
____________________

Figure 1: How would you define “religious fundamentalisms”?
Note: Multiple responses accepted; percentages will not total 100%
Base: 1,483 survey responses
Many women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms as a
multidimensional phenomenon that cannot be reduced to only one characteristic.
Therefore, the many responses were placed in more than one defining category
(the total percentage in Figure 1 is greater than 100%). This multidimensionality
is also apparent in the one-on-one in-depth interviews, where activists with long
histories and experiences of working on the issue commonly define religious
fundamentalisms by referring to a combination of characteristics. Take, for example,
the following definition that combines: political use of religion, an ideology not open
to other alternatives, and one that is patriarchal.

The term has several elements: (i) [it] shows that it’s a political
use of religion; (ii) unlike liberation theology, it is not open to
other ways of being religious, especially of the same religion.
They say there is one version which they impose through
various media on their constituency. and; (iii) in most cases,
this version of religion, because it also tends to be premodern
and talk about “purification” and going back to The “Truth, latches [on] to patriarchal modes of society and control of women. Most religions emerged in
pre-modern times when sexism was much more
shameless and dominant. (Nira Yuval-Davis,
United Kingdom)

Religious fundamentalisms are “absolutist and intolerant”
The most commonly identified characteristic of religious fundamentalisms
by women’s rights activists is “absolutist and intolerant” (more than
40% of responses). This experience applies equally not only across
regions and religions, but also across ages. In addition, a significant
portion of women’s rights activists state that religious fundamentalists
take positions that are not open to debate or challenge. This definition
considers religious fundamentalisms as opposing what democracy and
democratic values are supposed to be. A variety of characteristics used
by the survey respondents are included in this descriptor, such as antipluralist
(within one’s own religion as well as with respect to others and to
non-religious people), suppressive of dissent, dogmatic or fascist.

People interviewed from a wide variety of contexts also support the
idea of absolutism and intolerance as central to understanding the
phenomenon. This is often expressed by combining the idea of a unique
truth with the intention of imposing that truth on others.
Christian extremists, what we call fundamentalists,
believe there is only one way of doing things and
they interpret that way for their followers. (Dorothy
Aken’Ova, Nigeria)

Religious fundamentalisms are institutions,
ideas and cultural practices that, from a single
and dogmatic vision of reality, attempt to
impose values, behaviours and forms of social
organizations and hierarchies, violently excluding
and persecuting any differing perspective and
practice. (Daptnhe Cuevas and Marusia López
Cruz, Mexico)

Dogmatic thinking and action that defends
certain religious positions as unique, true and
unchangeable. (Roxana Vásquez Sotelo, Peru)
People who are fundamentalist need to feel that
they have the truth; they are the only ones who
have the truth. (Alia Hogben, Canada)

Distinguishing religious fundamentalisms from religious conservatism is not
straightforward. For some women rights activists, there is no clear distinction
between these two phenomena; in some contexts, “conservatism” is even used in
place of “fundamentalisms” or the two terms are used interchangeably. However,
for many women’s rights activists who do differentiate between the two, they regard
the characteristic “absolutist and intolerant” as being crucial. Interviewees recognize
that both seek to reinforce patriarchy and are very much opposed to the expansion
of women’s rights. “No religion has fully accommodated women and those of us who
work within religions just tend to feel that lack more in the religion we are closest
to…” (Frances Kissling, United States)

Yet, there are some distinctions between the two phenomena: dialogue, alliances,
debate and negotiation are difficult, if not impossible, with religious fundamentalists,
which is not the case with religious conservatives.

Conservatives think for themselves; religious fundamentalists
want everyone to think their way. I can debate with people that
disagree with me but not with people who think they have a
direct line to God. (Rev. Debra W. Haffner, United States)

Conservatives maybe don’t want to rock the boat; if you
change things, you’re going away from what things should
be. But religious fundamentalists are people who think this
is It; this is God-given and written and it can’t be changed.
I think they’re more vicious; it’s easier to collaborate with a
conservative; you could sit down and get to a common point.
Religious fundamentalists might not even want to sit across
[the] table and talk to you. (Asma’u Joda, Nigeria)

Religious fundamentalisms “oppose women’s rights and freedoms”
The second most frequently mentioned characteristic, included in almost a quarter
of all responses, is that religious fundamentalisms are by definition against women’s
autonomy and/or promote patriarchy. One in four respondents considers the antiwomen
position as a defining characteristic reflecting the “radical patriarchy”5
espoused by religious fundamentalisms. Furthermore, the responses reflect that
those with experiences of Catholic fundamentalisms (either alone or in combination
with Christian fundamentalisms6) are those who most often mention anti-women and
patriarchal as defining characteristics of religious fundamentalisms.7

The anti-women characteristic of religious fundamentalisms clearly emerges in the
data collected in the survey. For example, 79% of women’s rights activists affirm
that the overall impact of religious fundamentalisms on women’s rights has been
negative, while 69% consider that religious fundamentalisms obstruct women’s rights
more than other political forces.

Understanding the relationship between patriarchy and religious fundamentalisms
The focus of religious fundamentalisms on control over women also emerges
in most of the interviews. Reinforcing patriarchy is seen to be a key dimension
of the phenomenon and is a central concern of religious fundamentalists. Even
though patriarchy exists in almost all religions, it takes on a more extreme form in
fundamentalisms, as indicated below:

The reordering of notions of masculinity and femininity is central
to all religious fundamentalisms. We shouldn’t leave out the fact
that men’s worlds are being fundamentally reordered also. Part of
the demand that religious fundamentalisms are making on men
is precisely to control their women – ‘Push them back into the
home. Make them behave in ways that are acceptable. Otherwise
you’re not a man’. For a lot of young men that is a very attractive
proposition… (Gita Sahgal, United Kingdom/India)

Religious fundamentalisms want to re-inscribe a theory of
complementarities between man and woman as unchangeable
realities. They reject modern ideas of equality between men and
women. (Marta Alanis, Argentina)

Gender is very fundamental to the production of collective identity.
That is what you are talking about here, the appropriation of a
collective identity. Sexuality, and the rules that apply to it and the
punishments for contravening set rules are very basic to collective
identity. And because fundamentalisms are based on this
appropriation of an identity, that’s why, to me, gender is so central.
(Farida Shaheed, Pakistan)

Religious fundamentalisms are about “the fundamentals of religion”
Another commonly mentioned characteristic is that religious fundamentalisms are
about “the fundamentals of religion” and/or those who follow strict beliefs (18%).
Two aspects of “the fundamentals of religion” should be noted. On the one hand, it
means that some women’s rights activists consider the problem to be religion itself.
Accordingly, there is not much difference between religion and fundamentalisms
since all religions are, in the end, problematic for democracy and for women’s rights.
[A] universal issue that continues to hound humanity
is religions. Religion and related issues such as racial
discrimination and other forms of intolerance are old issues
that have long divided the world as west and east, as majority
race and minority race, and the people as men and women.
(survey respondent, Indonesia)

On the other hand, a minority of responses consider that religious fundamentalisms
are defined as following a religion closely, with either neutral, or perhaps even some
positive, consequences.

[Religious fundamentalisms] are essential requirements/bases/
guidelines of a religion, i.e., what is meant to be and what is
not right for a particular religion. The different responsibilities,
rights and obligations of different persons (Man and Woman) in
a given religion. (survey respondent, Uganda)

There are some differences among those who define religious fundamentalisms as
being about “the fundamentals of religion” as concerns different contexts. Those
who identify their context as being affected by Catholic fundamentalisms tend to
indicate this characteristic the least. On the other hand, those respondents working
in Christian fundamentalist contexts, or a combination of Christian and Muslim
fundamentalisms, define it as being about the fundamentals of religion with greater
frequency than those in contexts affected by Muslim or Catholic fundamentalisms
only. When regional focus is factored in, those working on sub-Saharan Africa make
up the highest percentage of respondents who understand religious fundamentalisms
as being about the fundamentals of religion (27%).
Religious fundamentalisms are about “power and politics”

Being about power and politics is another characteristic associated with religious
fundamentalisms (17%). The connection to power, of course, varies in different
contexts, from the indirect influence of religious fundamentalisms on lawmakers to
directly gaining state power in order to advance fundamentalist agendas. Whether
religious fundamentalists hold power or not, or whether they are working within a
democratic system or not, influences how religious fundamentalisms operate and
the main strategies they use. Women’s rights activists from different contexts also
mention this characteristic in the one-on-one interviews:

In the case of Muslim countries, we need to see religious
fundamentalisms as a process. We need to differentiate
between when they are in opposition and when they are
in power because their strategies and their language
change completely. Two important elements in religious
fundamentalisms [are] their absolutism [and] their lack of
tolerance for any pluralism both in religious, political and
social terms. Also [they] use… politics to enforce their vision of
religion. (Ziba Mir-Hosseini, United Kingdom/Iran)
Political movements that use religion in its most conservative
forms to access political (and economic) power and/or to
maintain it… (Alejandra Sardá, Argentina)

Religious fundamentalisms are “against human rights and freedoms”
Religious fundamentalisms are also considered “anti-human rights and antifreedoms”
(17%). As the mapping of responses in Figure 2 in the next section shows
in more detail, religious fundamentalisms are also characterized as a direct negation
of rights in general, even the most basic of human rights.
Religious fundamentalisms include any set of norms or
[dictates] that restricts the freedom of thought, movement,
work, marital status, sexual orientation, political participation
and education, on the basis of ‘divine law’. (survey respondent,
Israel)

Religion that has dogmas and practices that do not affirm
the human rights, dignity and freedom of all people. (survey
respondent, Nigeria/United States)

Religious rules with no respect for basic human right [to] life.
(survey respondent, Poland)

Religious fundamentalisms are “literalist and outmoded”
It is interesting to note that only one in ten survey responses mentions “literalist
or outmoded” as a characteristic of religious fundamentalisms. This suggests that
the term as understood by women’s rights activists today has shifted away from its
genealogy (i.e., a literalist interpretation of the Bible). As suggested before, the term
has evolved from its original context and meaning, and is now used to describe a
much wider phenomenon. It is also clear that women’s rights activists increasingly
understand the contemporary phenomenon of religious fundamentalisms as a
sophisticated and modern one, and stress motivations and agendas of various
religious fundamentalist actors over the particular historicity of the term.

There is a strict, historical concept and another that is a [wider],
more political use of the concept… In the latter case, religious
fundamentalism is applied to all religious movements that have
a strong conservative or reactionary position against modern
values, such as autonomy, particularly women’s autonomy,
and democratic freedoms. It is also applied to the ways those
religions try to influence public policy. (María José Rosado-
Nunes, Brazil)

[T]he term comes out of the Christian tradition and is based
on the notion of taking scripture literally… Jews never take
scripture literally – on the contrary, we pile on layers and layers
of commentaries and interpretation and in that sense it is not
applicable and I think Muslim colleagues might concur – but
certainly many of the other features that we brought out, such
as patriarchy, an attempt to use religion to manipulate people,
to have power over them, intolerance, not making room for
the other, etc. I think unfortunately we do have movements in
Judaism that embody those characteristics, so the objection to
the word is more of a… scientific analytical objection and not
an objection in terms of reality, if I can make that distinction.
(Debbie Weissman, Israel)

Religious fundamentalisms are “violent”
Finally, very few survey respondents define religious fundamentalisms as inherently
violent (6%). This does not mean that women’s right activists deny the existence of
violence on the part of some fundamentalist actors. On the contrary, when referring
to the impacts of religious fundamentalisms on women, activists report religious
fundamentalisms as being violent, particularly when verbal and psychological
violence is included. For example, almost half of women’s rights activists mention
that they themselves or people they know have been verbally attacked or insulted
by religious fundamentalists. Furthermore, three out of four respondents state that
religious fundamentalisms verbally or physically target people in the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) community, human rights
activists, or people who do not match the religious fundamentalists’ expected norms
of behaviour.

There is, in this respect, a gap between the ways in which women’s rights activists
define religious fundamentalisms, and their experiences of the impacts of those
religious fundamentalisms. This may be important to consider when formulating
feminist strategies and conceptualizing the phenomenon.
Mapping definitions

When asked to define religious fundamentalisms, women’s rights activists emphasize
different aspects and characteristics that they have experienced in relation to the
phenomenon. Another way of analyzing these responses is to provide a mapping
(Figure 2) representing an integrated analysis of the defining characteristics of
religious fundamentalisms as highlighted by women’s rights activists.
Mapping women’s rights activists’ definitions of religious
fundamentalisms8

Semantic definitions by women’s rights activists concentrate on what
fundamentalisms are rather than what they do. For some activists, religious
fundamentalisms are certain interpretations of religious texts that present the truth as
singular and present a dogmatic understanding of the world. The idea of “literalism”
(an obvious reference to the historical origins of the term) is also mentioned. Still
others consider religious fundamentalisms as promoting extreme and fanatical
interpretations and understandings of religion.

The following quotes characterize religious fundamentalisms as narrow and dogmatic
ways of interpreting truth, religious texts and the world:
A collection of religious positions involving interpreting sacred
texts as literally as possible, and assuming that doing that
gives higher “truth and holiness” to religious claims based on
the interpretations, and higher moral status to the makers of
those. (survey respondent, Netherlands)

Dogmatic interpretation of the Bible/Quran or other religious
publications which does not attempt to connect achievement
of spiritual wellbeing with social realities that may include
manifestations of injustice and inequality. This results in beliefs
and practices that tend to violate the rights and dignity of
persons in the name of religious piety. (survey respondent,
Philippines)

Religious fundamentalisms are those which, from a very
particular and biased interpretation of religion, impede other,
more inclusive readings. (survey respondent, Ecuador)
Another set of responses that also defined religious fundamentalisms as “ways
of interpreting” focus more on its political component. These responses regard
religious fundamentalisms as ideological projects aiming to control the individual and/
or society as a whole. Religious fundamentalisms in these experiences are about
imposing on others a certain way of interpreting and understanding the world. In
these responses, the term “religious fundamentalisms” is less a definition of how they
interpret religious texts and more a vision of the world closely connected to power.
[F]undamentalisms, in general, are not just a form of theology,
but rather, an ideology that opposes any kind of pluralism and
joins forces with identifiable social and political interest groups.
(survey respondent, Colombia)

Ideological and cultural constructions created by people or
institutions to gain control and power, subjugating population
groups. (survey respondent, Nicaragua)

Political ideologies which seek to impose an orthodox
monolithic and exclusionary vision of religion upon
communities, and to define faith and practice along such lines.
(survey respondent, Bangladesh)

Finally, there is another cluster of responses within this semantic definition that
characterizes religious fundamentalisms by who they are and how they seek to
shape the world around them. Instead of stressing interpretations, they concentrate
on religious fundamentalist actors and their agendas. On the one hand, some
women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms by identifying the main
proponents. On the other hand, there are women’s rights activists who consider the
main discourses, practices and/or beliefs that characterize religious fundamentalisms
in the contemporary world.
I
t relates to politico-cultural movements whose power lies
in the fact that, in [their] alliance with powerful economic
segments, they exert great influence on the subjective
formation of important sectors of the population. (survey
respondent, Argentina)

Religious fundamentalism is the misuse of religion by
conservative and retrograde movements for their political aims
and to restrict the rights of minorities and confine women to
traditional roles. (survey respondent, Serbia)

It is a set of beliefs rooted in a community, passed on from
generation to generation, whose principle is the dogma by
which no discussion or criticism is brooked. It is taken up by
the whole community without questioning. (survey respondent,
Mexico)

Pragmatic definitions
The other way women’s rights activists define religious fundamentalisms is in
a pragmatic sense, which focuses more on the specific effects that religious
fundamentalisms have on society and the individual. Instead of providing a
conceptual definition, the responses characterize religious fundamentalisms by
identifying what their consequences are. The responses can be grouped into
two main types: those that define religious fundamentalisms by identifying the
negative consequences they have on society, particularly with respect to equality
and freedom; and those that consider their negative effects on the political system,
particularly with respect to democratic and pluralist values.9
Religious fundamentalisms as an obstacle to social equality

Characteristics associated with the responses that stress social inequality and
exclusion as consequences of religious fundamentalisms include: coercion,
imposition, violence, exclusion, poverty, patriarchy, lack or suppression of dialogue,
discrimination and oppression of women, among others. These types of responses
see religious fundamentalisms as opposing what a society should be according to
women’s rights activists. In this sense, religious fundamentalisms attack core values
of equality, justice and freedom.
Extremities and non-accommodation of religious practices
and beliefs that lead to segregation/discrimination of persons
not affiliated to their religious groupings. (survey respondent,
Kenya)

It is the manipulation of woman’s consciousness to perpetuate
the patriarchal, colonial system. They insinuate the culture of
fear into a woman’s consciousness in order to dominate and
subjugate her. They make womankind submissive, voiceless,
and believing in her inferiority to man. (survey respondent,
Argentina)

[Religious fundamentalists] are religious group[s] who
strong[ly] believe in traditional values, therefore keeping
the status quo [and] oppressing and marginalizing the poor,
especially women. (survey respondent, Brazil/Canada)
To me, “religious fundamentalisms” describes faith-based
ideologies that adopt rigid and totalitarian beliefs and
practices, and promote intolerance of beliefs, lifestyles and
personal freedoms that conflict with those ideologies. (survey
respondent, Canada)

[They are] those authoritarian, exclusionary, conservative and
profoundly antidemocratic ideologies that threaten the rights of
individuals, particularly those of women, to live a free life and
without discrimination. (survey respondent, Chile)
Religious fundamentalisms as an obstacle to democracy and
freedom

Another set of responses focuses on the negative effects that religious
fundamentalisms have on democratic politics and rights: they concentrate on
the effects that religious fundamentalisms have on the legal and political arenas,
stressing how they negatively influence human rights, women’s rights, and/or sexual
and reproductive rights. Some responses are also clustered around the negative
consequences that religious fundamentalisms have on core democratic values such
as diversity, tolerance, equality, freedom and autonomy. These types of responses
locate religious fundamentalisms in clear opposition to a democratic political
community.

Religious fundamentalists are those who obstruct (or even
control) freethinking and democratic functions of civil society
by curbing them in the name of religion… (survey respondent,
India/United States)

A religious attitude in which the religious rules supersede
human rights and national legal standards in the opinion and
practice of the followers. (survey respondent, Netherlands)
Religious perspectives that work against women’s autonomy,
don’t recognize their moral authority and ethical capacity
to make decisions about all aspects of their lives, and fight
against women’s sexual rights and reproductive rights. (survey
respondent, Brazil)

The usefulness of the term “religious fundamentalisms” for
activists
Another important question related to the definition of religious fundamentalisms is to
explore whether women’s rights activists consider the term useful. Although the term
is widely used, its utility remains a central concern for academics and activists alike.
While it is clear that for some, there is undeniably a dimension of religion that can
be considered fundamentalist, for others the label itself is problematic and should
be discarded because of its many limitations.10 Both the complexities of defining the
term and the unease some people feel with its use, especially in the context of the
‘War on Terror’, raise some concerns about the use of the term for the purposes of
activism.

The responses reflected in the AWID survey convey the complex relationship that
women’s rights activists have with the term “religious fundamentalisms”. While half
of survey respondents affirm that the term is useful in their work (51%), the other
half express doubts about its usage – either they are not sure that it is useful or they
have clear reservations about its usefulness. Therefore, in spite of its wide use, it is
important to bear in mind that a significant percentage of activists do have concerns
about its use.

Promoting racist stereotypes?
According to the survey results, the most frequently cited concern regarding
the term is that it stresses and/or reinforces negative stereotyping: 28% of
respondents who do not consider the term useful provide this reason. This answer,
together with the idea that the term directly targets Muslims and/or Islam (6%),
is by far the most prevalent reason for which the term is not considered useful
by a significant proportion of women’s rights activists. The fear that challenging
religious fundamentalisms may contribute to or increase prejudice and racism
against a religious or ethnic community is considerable for many women’s rights
activists. According to the survey, 20% affirm that efforts to challenge religious
fundamentalisms are greatly increasing prejudice and racism, while 30% consider
that efforts to challenge religious fundamentalisms contribute to some extent to
increasing prejudice and racism. Although we cannot know for sure, it would be
safe to assume that the manipulation of the discourse of “fundamentalisms” and
the subsequent demonizing of Muslims in the context of the “War on Terror” has
contributed largely to this concern.

Some activists do not find the term useful because it is not relevant in their work
(15%). Another reason provided is that the term reinforces or plays into the religious
fundamentalists’ claim that they represent true believers or that they are simply
following the fundamentals of their faith (10%). Finally, some activists feel that the
term is limited by a lack of shared understanding of what it means, finding it too
complex or academic, or that it sounds too much like jargon (7%).

Little agreement on alternatives to the term
Despite the multiple limitations mentioned by women’s rights activists, few
respondents or interviewees provide alternatives to the term. Only 29% of survey
respondents who do not find the term useful offer any alternative suggestions.
Furthermore, these suggestions are scattered across a range of possibilities
with no clear favourite. Alternatives to “religious fundamentalisms” include terms
that emphasize the violent, anti-pluralist, extremist, fanatic, or intolerant aspects
of religious fundamentalisms (such as “extremisms” and “fanaticisms”). Some
emphasize the political nature of the phenomenon (such as “political Islam”, or
“the religious right”), while others prefer very local terms (such as “Hindutva”),
which do not capture the more global/transnational manifestations of religious
fundamentalisms.

A complex picture of actors
The actors named by women’s rights activists as influential in the arena of religious
fundamentalisms present a complex picture that resists simplification. Women’s
rights activists caution against any presumptions about who is or is not likely to
be fundamentalist. From their analysis, a complex picture emerges of religious
fundamentalist actors operating across some major dualities: (a) the local and the
global); (b) the religious and the secular; and (c) elites and followers.
Religious fundamentalist actors as both local and global

Among the fundamentalist actors identified by women’s rights activists, we can
see both the influence of local or national players in a particular country or region,
and those functioning at international or transnational levels. The frequency of
these answers indicates that religious fundamentalist actors are politically active
in local, national and international arenas, and while some are contained by the
borders of specific political communities, most form part of transnational networks
and agendas. Take, for example, countries influenced by Catholic fundamentalisms
where a transnational religious organization such as Opus Dei (founded in Spain in
the early 20th century) is now active globally and co-exists with local churches and
organizations. In Indonesia, actors include the transnational Hizb ut-Tahrir (which
originated in Haifa, Israel in the 1950s), which coexists with the local Justice Party.

Distinguishing between what is transnational and what is local is almost impossible
in the case of Sikh fundamentalisms.
[Religious fundamentalists] have been active and successful
in lobbying first human rights organizations, then the UN
system, and played a decisive role in the recent UN General
Assembly decision and subsequent Human Rights Council
decision demanding [that] all member states inscribe in their
constitutions, in their laws and in their education system
“respect of religions and their prophets”. This decision has
been met with total indifference from Left forces as well as
feminist forces the world over while there should be a global
outcry against it. (Marieme Hélie-Lucas, France/Algeria)
Religious fundamentalist actors as both “secular” and
“religious”

Being characterized as a fundamentalist actor goes beyond the religious/secular
dichotomy. Although most women’s rights activists identify actors that are overtly
“religious” (such as the hierarchy of a church, a religious political party or a religious
organization), an important number of respondents include “secular” actors
as part of religious fundamentalist movements, particularly “secular” NGOs or
“secular” political parties and leaders. For many women’s rights activists, there are
politicians and sectors of civil society that form part of the phenomenon of religious
fundamentalisms, without necessarily being visibly identifiable as “religious”. The
content of an actor’s agenda is, for some women’s rights activists, more important
in defining an institution or an individual as “fundamentalist” than the specific label
of “religious”. In this sense, civic or political leaders can be considered part of the
phenomenon of religious fundamentalisms if they defend a fundamentalist agenda.

I think that sometimes religious fundamentalism is easy to
identify and sometimes it is insidious. In the United States, the
current leadership is all quite openly Christian fundamentalist
and laws that are slowly revoking the rights of women are
being passed by the day. This in turn makes it easier for
other state leaders to justify national laws that are based
on strict religious beliefs, but no one is calling it religious
fundamentalism. (survey respondent, United States)
Religious fundamentalist actors as both elites and followers

There are some women’s rights activists who highlight the role of religious
fundamentalist elites, those with religious or political power, while others focus
more on the “ordinary” followers, those sectors of the population that identify with
religious fundamentalist tendencies. Women’s rights activists clearly point out
that fundamentalisms are a complex phenomenon comprised of both elites and
followers who have different connections to the phenomenon and are recruited
in different ways. In general, when the focus is on religious fundamentalist elites,
specific individuals or institutions, the tendency is to consider the anti-democratic
components of their agendas. These elites, who tend to be men from wealthier
segments of society, are seen as crucial obstacles for progress in women’s rights.

A central challenge, then, is how to overcome their influence in the formulation of
public policy and lawmaking.

There are, however, some women’s rights activists who define religious
fundamentalisms by focusing on those sectors that follow, and identify with, religious
fundamentalist tendencies. This type of focus is more concerned with who and/or
why some sectors of the population become religious fundamentalists, the effects
they have on those around them, and whom they have power over. For women’s
rights activists who understand religious fundamentalisms in this way, a crucial
concern is the “identification” of women with fundamentalist tendencies, and how to
critically examine this identification.

In the experience of women’s rights activists, a significant factor
in the current rise of religious fundamentalisms is the backlash
against women’s improved status or increased autonomy, and
against the recognition of new frameworks for human rights.
Religious fundamentalisms are active at grassroots, national and
regional levels, and within international arenas, they are becoming
increasingly influential – stalling efforts on rights treaties, diluting
progressive discourse and creating alliances to immobilize the
international human rights system. As these movements continue to
evolve – forging international links, co-opting the language of rights
and gender justice, employing sophisticated media and technology,
and appealing to individuals in subjective and material ways –
progressive movements must also continue to evolve effective
strategies to resist and challenge religious fundamentalisms, and to
reclaim critical discourses, spaces and constituents.

This publication seeks to build a deeper and more shared
understanding among women’s rights activists and their allies
of the way fundamentalist projects work to undermine women’s
rights, human rights and development. Although the impacts of
religious fundamentalisms may be localized and context-specific,
in the experience of women’s rights activists, the commonalities far
outweigh the diversity. Religious fundamentalisms represent a global
phenomenon that requires a concerted and consolidated global
response. Just as the strategies of religious fundamentalists are
positioned according to different geographies, constituencies and
issues – but linked by a common thread – the resistance mounted
by rights activists across all sectors can also be empowered by a
diverse, transnational and coherent mobilization.

In the context of rapid neoliberal globalization, a growing gap between rich and poor,
and increasing uncertainty about the future, religious fundamentalists campaign under
the banner of justice and a return to traditional values; they build their campaigns around
issues that resonate in people’s lives. As one women’s rights activist notes, “[T]here is a
very rapid change spreading all over the world: it is very destabilizing to cultures, and so
there is a tendency within these cultures for people to want to hold on to what they see as
less changing, perhaps imagined as timeless forces.” (Mab Segrest, United States)

Fundamentalist movements often present a telling critique of
late capitalist society, which they portray as being composed of
alienated, selfish individuals, engaged in the obsessive pursuit
of pleasure without heed for its consequences for others. As a
solution to alienation and dislocation, fundamentalism prescribes
a commitment to gender role, family and community. The
fundamentalist ideology everywhere appears as collectivist and
communalist. (survey respondent, Uganda)

Religious fundamentalisms exploit the importance of religion in people’s lives, calling up
religiously defined concepts of “good” and “evil”, and offering certainty, hope and quick
solutions to the most complex or subjective problems. They foster a sense of identity,
belonging and meaning among their followers, and create emotional communities
that fill the social and existential needs of the moment. Discussing the critical appeal
of Evangelical churches in Africa, one women’s rights activist notes “the cathartic and
emotional experience that women have in lives that are otherwise difficult” (Ayesha
Imam, Nigeria). More than ethno-nationalist and cultural fundamentalisms and other
manifestations of identity politics, religious fundamentalisms address metaphysical
questions, and this makes them particularly hard to resist.

[The religious fundamentalist] message becomes appealing to
different constituencies. Many of our societies are going through
massive change and with change comes uncertainty. The
fundamentalists offer a clear message in black and white. This
becomes very appealing, as opposed to the many options that
liberals and democrats offer. When someone comes along in
religious garb and gives you this “one, true message”, you don’t
have to think any more. It makes life easier for those who yearn for
certainty in life. (Zainah Anwar, Malaysia)

They have moved away from glorifying poverty to the kind of
motivational speaking that promises riches and wealth, that gives
hope. In so doing, they have become more authoritative in each
country. Government ministers, business people, young people…
are being enticed to join. (Hope Chigudu, Uganda/Zimbabwe)

Shared experiences of religious fundamentalisms
Despite the range of their experiences of religious fundamentalisms,
women’s rights activists have a shared understanding of the
phenomenon that rises above contextual diversities. In AWID’s
study, a number of key defining characteristics appear to resonate
across regions and religions. The most frequently mentioned
defining characteristic of religious fundamentalisms is “absolutist and
intolerant”, followed by their “anti-women and patriarchal” position.
Throughout the world, these movements are also experienced as
“about politics and power”, “anti-human rights and freedoms”, and
being “violent”.

According to women’s rights activists, the main actors in
fundamentalist movements are found across local and global levels,
within religious and secular institutions, and among followers and the
elite. They may be active as political or religious leaders, charities and
NGOs, religious organizations, missionaries, and ordinary members of
communities and families.

Although fundamentalist movements may vary within a country
and even within a religion, this diversity is generally limited to
a question of priorities. Indeed, there are often similarities in
areas where religious fundamentalisms are presumed to operate
very differently. For example, campaigning against sexual and
reproductive rights appears to be a central concern of Catholic,
Orthodox Christian and Pentecostal fundamentalisms, while Muslim
fundamentalisms are seen to concentrate more on dress codes.
However, Pentecostal fundamentalisms also impose dress codes, and
Muslim fundamentalisms are also anti-abortion – they simply vary with
regard to their emphases. As one women’s rights activist from Kenya
observes, a common agenda can even inspire movements that, on
the surface, seem fundamentally opposed: “A couple of years ago, the
Catholic Church in Kenya combined forces with Islamic organizations
and burnt thousands of condoms in a public park in Nairobi. This
was the first time that two opposing religious groups had a common
agenda against condoms”. Indeed, among the “three fundamentalist
expressions that dominate the international debates: Islamists, Roman
Catholics and Evangelical Christians… the only issues on which they
agree are those related to restricting the exercise of sexual rights on
the part of women, but also of others with non-conventional identities
and practices.” (Alejandra Sardá, Argentina)

Although religious fundamentalisms are complex and multi-dimensional, what emerges most
clearly from the research is the common ground in the ways that women’s rights activists within
different religions and regions both understand and experience the phenomenon. In the effort
to develop transnational alliances and strategies for confronting the global rise of religious
fundamentalisms, this common ground is where we begin.

A negative impact on women’s rights
In the experience of 8 out of 10 women’s rights activists surveyed from over 160 countries,
religious fundamentalisms have a negative impact on women’s rights. In AWID’s survey,
women’s rights activists cite over 600 examples of the negative impact of religious
fundamentalisms: these are physical and psychological, and are manifested in the control
over women’s bodies, sexuality, autonomy, freedom of movement and participation in public
life. According to women’s rights activists, the negative impacts of fundamentalist campaigns
are often interconnected, multifaceted and long-lasting. For the very small percentage who
do perceive a positive impact, the reasons are often paradoxical, for example, that shared
opposition to religious fundamentalisms is creating solidarity among local women’s groups, or
driving people to abandon religion altogether.

Over two-thirds of women’s rights activists regard religious fundamentalisms as obstructing
women’s rights more than other political forces. In this light, religious fundamentalisms are
the main political challenge in the fight for women’s rights. Overall, women’s rights activists
working at the international level have a more negative perception of the impact of religious
fundamentalisms than those working at local and national levels. The reason may be that
women’s rights activists working at the local level witness greater resistance to religious
fundamentalisms and are closer to the factors that undermine their influence. But this
difference may also reflect the emphasis that religious fundamentalisms place on penetrating
and influencing the international sphere.

What is at stake at the international level is different from what is at
stake at the local level. In many cases, States “give in” to progressive
demands in terms of women’s rights at the national level due to the
combined pressure from international donors and public opinion,
but then continue to act internationally as the “champions of the
faith” because at the international level, “religion and culture” are the
preferred devices for masking power struggles. (Alejandra Sardá,
Argentina)

In the experience of women’s rights activists, a key factor in the current rise of religious
fundamentalisms is the backlash against global commitments toward women’s
improved status or increased autonomy. The involvement of religious fundamentalists
at the international level can be traced to the early 1990s – the beginning of the cycle
of five United Nations (UN) meetings dealing with political issues in a new human
rights context (Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Vienna, Beijing and Copenhagen). In each of
those conferences, women’s rights movements put forward new ways of looking at
gender, sexuality and reproduction, and insisted that women’s rights were human rights.
Religious fundamentalisms reacted to the UN’s modernity and tentative acceptance of
women’s rights as human rights, and they have been successful in dramatically slowing
but not stopping the advance of women’s rights. This trend is repeated at the regional
level.

The best example has been the way in which the Christian
fundamentalist, Evangelical churches, Catholic Church and, to a
lesser extent, Islamic movements, have opposed the ratification
of the African Union Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa.
They have been vocal and have invested huge amounts
in publicity in order to cast the Protocol as a “pro-abortion”
instrument. Their day-to-day access to large communities in
which they can perpetuate these myths, and the funding that they
receive, make the battle particularly difficult. (survey respondent,
Kenya/United Kingdom)

From its founding, the UN and its agencies have sought out religious institutions as a
source of credibility and as implementing arms for educational, health and humanitarian
services, according them disproportionately more power in the international sphere than
other civil society organizations. The special role of the Holy See as a non-member
state in the UN and the special status of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC) has given religious fundamentalisms an inside track on influencing international
policy. During the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo
(1994), the Holy See led efforts that tied up the proceedings in a debate about a single
paragraph in the plan of action on abortion, thus stalling efforts to advance other
reproductive rights such as adolescent access to sexuality education and greater
provision of contraceptive supplies. Religious fundamentalist groups have affected how
UN agencies talk about women’s rights, especially reproductive rights. For example,
attacks on UNICEF for its work on reproductive rights have resulted in rhetorical, if not
practical, back-pedalling. A far more ominous and successful force within the UN has
been the Bush administration, which has allowed religious fundamentalisms, particularly
those led by the Vatican, to be less visible, and has led the United States government to
take positions that damage women’s rights.2

There was a [religious fundamentalist] publicity campaign using
the motto “Don’t be quiet, raise your voice.” The same motto is
used from a vision of rights and citizenship to denounce religious
fundamentalisms in civil servants. (survey respondent, Mexico)
[An important change] is the decision to “take to the streets” and
demonstrate every time there is a controversy over sexual rights.
This has been happening with increased intensity since 2000 and in
bigger numbers. I think it has to do with the formal democratization
processes in the region and the methods for expressing social
demands, which the religious fundamentalists have also joined (and
why shouldn’t they?). [This is] an adversary that no longer operates
as the “power behind the throne”, but defines itself as a social
movement and questions meanings and spaces as such. (Alejandra
Sardá, Argentina)

In India, Hindu fundamentalisms use the language of access and power to recruit young
women university students who were originally sensitized to these concepts by women’s
rights organizations. In Pakistan, when students at the girls’ Jamia Hafza madrasah –
connected with the infamous Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) – violently attacked a local woman
for allegedly running a brothel, Muslim fundamentalists supporting the attack claimed
they were “strongly in favour of women rights, that women should have protection from
prostitution.” (survey respondent, Pakistan)

The overall effect is negative, even though there is a language
of rights and empowerment that is brought to play in the Islamist
discourse. (Sara Hossain, Bangladesh)

The increasing strength, global funding and respectability of civil society have made this
arena highly attractive for religious fundamentalisms. When asked to rate the relative
influence of a range of fundamentalist actors in their work, 62% of women’s rights activists
named NGOs/charities with fundamentalist tendencies or links. A crucial fundamentalist
tactic in Latin America and the Caribbean, and in Western Europe, North America, Australia
and New Zealand, is the establishment of ‘pro-life’ NGOs. Meanwhile, according to
women’s rights activists affected by Muslim fundamentalisms, the establishment of “front”
organizations is an important fundamentalist strategy.

They seem to me to be gaining in skill and are now using words that
were bad in the 1990s, for example, “gender”, they use [that term]
now, in many subtle ways, especially after [the] Beijing [Conference].
They are also more aggressive, and are supported by huge financial
agencies and powerful governments like the United States. (Susana
Chiarotti, Argentina)

The control of public policy
The relationship between religious fundamentalisms and the state, and thereby the impact
of religious fundamentalisms on public policy, is complex and two-way. This nexus, which
one women’s rights activist calls the “resacralization of politics and the politicization of
religion”, often serves to undermine state law. For example, in Bangladesh, religious
fundamentalisms have promoted fatwas in violation of rights and protections provided
under state law. Similarly, women’s rights activists report that in Sudanese refugee camps
in Egypt, the Catholic Church is supporting the import of informal justice mechanisms that
violate guarantees under international refugee and women’s human rights law.
Under the influence of religious fundamentalisms, the state may use its secular powers to
undermine or change public policy in ways that are profoundly discriminatory, both to women
and other marginalized groups, such as ethnic and religious minorities. Lito Atienza, until
2007 the Catholic fundamentalist mayor of Manila, removed all family planning services from
the city, going as far as conducting raids and harassing NGOs that dared to provide services
clandestinely. Working class women were then forced to either not use any contraception
or seek services from other cities. Better known examples include: Indonesia’s recent
“porno-action Bill”, which restricts women’s movements after 7 pm; Pakistan’s (now partially
repealed) extreme penalties for sex outside a valid marriage under the Hudood Ordinances;
and Sharia-influenced penal provisions in northern Nigeria. In the United States, where the
struggle over reproductive rights for women is ongoing, religious fundamentalists have been
able to influence the lifetime appointments of federal judges, including recent appointees to
the Supreme Court, who were noted for their Christian fundamentalist stance in opposition
to safe abortion and even contraception.

In Uruguay, the Left has won the government for the first time. The
Frente Amplio (the party in office) favours the legalization of abortion.
However, soon after his election, the President (a socialist doctor)
had lunch with the bishops. A few days later, he threatened that if
the parliament approved the sexual and reproductive health law that
would allow termination of pregnancy at the request of the woman, he
would veto it. (Lucy Garrido, Uruguay)

Whereas before it used to be “Hands off private matters in the
community”, the demand now is that religion must be given a public
presence, which means it isn’t any longer necessarily about wanting
to create parallel legal systems or separate religious schools, for
example, but it’s about influencing what exists in the mainstream
using religious identity. The faith agenda now dominates how the state
deals with minority communities. (Pragna Patel, United Kingdom)

Religious fundamentalists obstruct positive developments and use their influence to reverse
previously positive laws, policies or practices, for instance, reducing the legal minimum
age of marriage from 18 to 17 years in Uzbekistan following independence in the 1990s, a
move that undermined an international norm that was previously accepted in Uzbekistan’s
laws. Even if a campaign to introduce legal change is unsuccessful, it may be successful
at the level of attitudes and practice. For example, in 2007, an extreme rightwing party, the
League of Polish Families, with the support of the leading conservative party, launched
a campaign to amend the Constitution to include a “right to life from the moment of
conception”, which would effectively ban abortion under any circumstances, even when
the life of the mother is at risk. Although the campaign was unsuccessful at the legal level,
fundamentalist propaganda made women’s access to legal abortion almost impossible, with
a growing number of doctors in public hospitals refusing to perform the procedure on moral
grounds.

Pluralism and tolerance under attack
Women’s rights activists from a variety of contexts note the divisive impact of religious
fundamentalisms. In Azerbaijan, this is experienced as a social polarization between
the religious and the non-religious; in India, as heightened communal tensions between
Hindus, Muslims and Christians; and in Pakistan, as a rift between sects. Two out of three
women’s rights activists report that fundamentalists target members of other religions,
with the reported level of attacks common across regions. Although some religious
fundamentalists claim to campaign for pluralism, the evidence confirms their definition as
“absolutist and intolerant”.

In Sudan, there is an imposition of a foreign religious
fundamentalism, whether it is Islamic (Wahabi, Arabist, etc.) or
Christian (Evangelical, pro-Zionism). It creates, nurtures, inflames,
(and) reinforces negative divisions, restrictions on women, and
creates a formal obstacle for intra-national, inter-religious, intercultural
partnership that had often been something common and
dependable. (survey respondent, Sudan)

They teach you that all Jews are bad, Christians are bad and all
kafirs of course. There has been a splitting in society at certain
level. [Previously] nobody questioned whether you were Parsi or
Christian. Nobody asked if you were Shia or a Sunni, or anything.
That integration of society has disintegrated. Vast numbers of an
already small minority have migrated. Those who are left do not dare
speak out and their being Pakistani is questioned all the time. (Farida
Shaheed, Pakistan)

Women’s rights activists across the world note the shrinking of secular spaces, notably
through attacks on the public education system, which is a foundation of social unity and
pluralism. In Nigeria, for example, religious fundamentalists have tried to undermine the
federal government “unity schools”, which as part of an effort to counteract ethno-religious
polarization have quotas to ensure the attendance of students from every state.

In one of the schools, the prayer room was being used by a
particular group of girls during Ramadan to try and put pressure on
other Muslim girls. They were saying, “You are bad Muslim girls.”
(Pragna Patel, United Kingdom)

Religious fundamentalisms penetrate the education system both as a recruitment strategy
and as an attempt to undermine plurality and critical thought. One young women’s rights
activist describes the fundamentalist mistrust of schools as a place of emancipation, where
young women can development autonomy. “This fear has led Salafist preachers to veil
their girls in order to, on the one hand, close them into traditional assigned roles, and on
the other, present them as victims of secular educators who want to teach their students
to think” (survey respondent, Morocco). For many young people, the fundamentalist
interpretation of religion is the only one they know, having had no alternative exposure or
comparative experience of their communities before the rise of fundamentalist influence. In
this context, one women’s rights activist argues that universal education, where students
from various religions and backgrounds attend the same school, is an effective force
against absolutism.

Younger women grow up much more ghettoized than my generation.
We grew up with the idea of a Black struggle, we had Caribbean
friends… Now people don’t have friends even within the Asian
community across religious lines, let alone beyond. The impact is a
much narrower mind-set, a very limited worldview, a very victimised
worldview. (Gita Sahgal, United Kingdom/India)
Creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation

Fundamentalist groups seek to fulfil what one women’s rights activist called a “need for
power and strength in numbers that has created fear and intimidation”. Their violence is
transnational and highly mobile within countries, such as in post-Suharto Indonesia, where
both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists recruited militia to be exported to the country’s
conflict areas. In the former Yugoslavia, India, the United States, Palestine and Israel, the
language and imagery used by religious fundamentalists is often emotive and bloodthirsty,
inciting outrage and vengeance.

In 2001, the [Hindu fundamentalist] Sangh Parivar unleashed
a signature campaign of blood in Delhi. A Delhi MP, Madan Lal
Khurana, a prominent member of the BJP and also the RSS, set
about collecting signatures in blood on huge banners proclaiming
the “death of terrorism”. The entire campaign and the speeches
made were designed to invoke violence and to identify patriotism
with revenge. Terrorism was made to assume an Islamic face
through repeated references to the religious identity of the terrorists.
(survey respondent, India)

Religious fundamentalist violence serves the goals of overturning states and undermining
foreign and local governments. Yet according to women’s rights activists, it is above all
designed to create fear and isolation in order to keep society fragmented, discourage those
who challenge or resist the fundamentalist project, and intimidate their potential allies.
According to 50% of women’s rights activists, using violence to intimidate opponents is a
common fundamentalist strategy. Across regions, women’s rights activists see religious
fundamentalisms as more likely to target members of the same religion who oppose them
politically than those who differ theologically (from the same religion but another sect).
In other words, religious fundamentalists are more concerned about quashing political
opposition than countering theological diversity.

Violence as a religious fundamentalist strategy
Nearly 10% of women’s rights activists have experienced destruction of the work place or
theft of equipment at the hands of religious fundamentalists – a tactic that appears most
common in Latin America and the Caribbean – while high rates of actual physical violence
against women’s rights activists due to their rights work (close to 1 in 5) are reported in
Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. From arson attacks on health clinics offering
abortion services in the United States to the stoning of vehicles owned by girl-child projects
in Pakistan, the livelihoods of women’s rights activists and the effectiveness of their
initiatives are obstructed by religious fundamentalist violence and intimidation.
One women’s rights activist describes how the work of Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha
(SANGRAM), an NGO working primarily with women in sex work in Sangli, Maharashtra,
India, was impeded by a series of violent police raids on brothels conducted due to the
influence of Restore International, an Evangelical Christian organization: “The raids, which
were conducted with missionary zeal and thug-like brutality, spared no one: two school girls
visiting their families were picked up among the 35 women and girls who were arrested.”
SANGRAM intervened to secure the release of adult women and the two school children,
as only minors in prostitution may legally be rescued. It was later rumoured, however, that
USAID had cut the NGO’s funding for impeding the rescue of minors – a claim refuted both
by the US embassy in Delhi and the NGO SANGRAM. Although SANGRAM considers
child prostitution a criminal offence and a form of child sexual abuse, it finds raids to be
an inadequate response to the problem because they lead to indiscriminate arrests and
physical violence. “Raids only drive marginalized communities further underground; longterm
community work is what is needed… The truth is that Restore International and its
allies thwart organizations like SANGRAM who have painstakingly created spaces in which
stigmatized women in prostitution are able to collectively find their own solutions to their
own problems” (Meena Seshu, India).

As women in Guatemala take up more public space, a religious
fundamentalist backlash has resulted in increased violence against
women both at home and in public. The use of machismo to assert
male dominance is a constant force repressing women, and is
sanctioned within the churches. (survey respondent, Guatemala)

Women working on women’s rights issues are often threatened and
treated in a very offensive ways in public places, and the reasons are
often very fundamentalist religious ideas about the “right” or “normal”
or “natural” way to be a man or a woman. And that is religious
fundamentalism at work in daily life. (survey respondent, Sweden)
Verbal attacks and insults by religious fundamentalists are a common part of the
experience of almost 50% of women’s rights activists – who have been targeted or know
of a colleague who has. For example, in 1993, when a group of women led a demand
for reform of the family code in Morocco, religious fundamentalists who strongly opposed
the expansion of women’s rights in the family published lists with the names of the
campaigners, stating that “all genuine Muslim believers were obliged to enforce the fatwa”
against them. Friday sermons at fundamentalist mosques declared that these “debauched
women” were leading a plot against Morocco’s Islamic identity, and society had to be
“purged of such enemies.” (survey respondent, Morocco)

Labelling is a strategy of verbal violence shared across regions, and 45% of women’s rights
activists have experienced it in some form. The most popular terms vary from region to
region. Being labelled an “atheist” or “unbeliever” is particularly common in the experience
of women’s rights activists in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Southeast Asia,
East Asia and the Pacific, and Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.
Those challenging Catholic fundamentalisms report it most frequently. Being labelled a
“bad” Christian/Hindu/Muslim, etc., or a “bad” woman/wife/daughter is most commonly
experienced by women’s rights activists focusing on Southeast Asia, and East Asia and the
Pacific. Religious fundamentalisms in Latin America and the Caribbean, Central and Eastern
Europe and Central Asia often label activists as “lesbian” or “gay” in a homophobic attempt
to discredit or intimidate them, while in Muslim contexts, “western” or “secular” appears to be
the most popular label.

Women’s rights activists between 30 and 44 years of age generally experience more of
each type of religious fundamentalist violence than those who are under 30 or over 45 years
old. This is likely a reflection of women’s rights activists at the peak of their engagement
in rights work, who are therefore more likely to face a violent response from religious
fundamentalisms.

The targets of religious fundamentalist violence
The targeting of women is widespread and common to all religious fundamentalisms – the
research revealed no significant differences according to region or religion. Seventy-seven
percent of women’s rights activists say women in general are frequently or sometimes
targeted for verbal and physical attack. In short, women are subject to fundamentalist
violence simply because they are women.

The horrific communal genocide of 2002 in Gujarat, India –
fundamentalist Hindutva forces in tandem with the ruling State
Government – saw the worst attack on Muslim women and girls in
the form of rape, burning and abuse. This has led to overall reduced
mobility and increase in patriarchal controls from within the affected
community for security and preservation of “honour”. (survey
respondent, India)

Yet, women are not the only ones targeted for physical or verbal attack. The research shows
that human rights activists are equally targeted by religious fundamentalisms. Seventy-seven
percent of women’s rights activists say that fundamentalist violence targets human rights
activists, while just over half say that peace activists are targeted.
www.awid.org

People of the Book: Can We Talk?

The Politics of Culture By Mehnaz Afridi

A city with history…
[Al-Quds/Jerusalem] – Perched on a bar stool in Jerusalem, I looked around at the many Israeli men in the room, relaxing, drinking beer and playing pool. I felt serene, but the tired faces of the soldiers told a different story. For them, this was an escape from their enemies who lay intimately bound to them beyond the hills of the city.

I caught the deep blue eyes of a young man standing beside me with a gun slung upon his shoulder and proceeded to order a beer. We exchanged smiles, and he decided to sit next to me.

He began to ask me personal questions. I told him I was from New York and was studying archaeology and the Bible. He asked me why I had chosen such an esoteric topic, and I reminded him that in Jerusalem it was a common topic; everyone came here to seek and understand the roots of the land.

His eyes widened as he gulped his beer, “But surely you know as a Jew that this is our ancestral homeland?”

I realized then, to my amusement, that he had assumed that I was an American Jew visiting my “home.”

“Well, no…. First, I am not Jewish, and second, I am not quite sure whose land this is…” I replied calmly.

“If you’re not Jewish, then you’re Catholic, right?” he asked, downing his drink.

I took a long breath and responded, “No, I’m a Muslim from Pakistan.”

He smiled, hoping that I was joking with him, “Come on…No Muslim comes here to a bar, or for that matter, to Israel…Especially not a woman!”

To prove it to him, I untied the pocket of my backpack and produced my flashy green passport that read, in Urdu and English gold lettering, “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” He took one look at the passport and shouted something in Hebrew to the others in the bar. Incredible as it sounds, in a flash, everyone but the bartender disappeared. I sat frozen on my stool, both confused and saddened by the disappearance of my former conversationalist.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths: Karen Armstrong’s classic account

Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948: your purchase helps support LCC programming
Eighteen years have passed, and I have since made it my life’s goal to foster mutual understanding between Jews and Muslims, so that both sides might overcome this fear of the “other.” Today, working with Jews and sharing their hopes for peace has been an illuminating experience.

I have visited Munich and the Dachau concentration camp in Germany, worked with non-profits, such as the Arava Institute and Muslims for Progressive Values, that show mutual respect for Jews and Muslims, and was invited by Levantine Cultural Center to speak with Muslims who are embittered by the Israeli Defence Forces’ policies towards Palestinians, and with Jews who mistrust Muslims because of the violent actions of Muslim extremists.

Along the way, I have found that Jewish-Muslim coexistence and trust has to be rooted in a basic mutual respect for one another’s faith. Common ground exists. In both Islam and Judaism, the community looks to respected religious leaders for spiritual direction. And while there are differences in form, the two also share the central practices of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, dietary laws and ritual purity. These similarities are most evident when comparing Islam to Orthodox Judaism.

As Muslims, we are well-served by learning from Jewish history, especially how Jews survived during their tribulations, before and after the Holocaust.

Jews can help Muslims navigate in the post-9/11 world by sharing the difficulties they too faced in Europe and the United States and their attempts to overcome them. At the same time, Muslims can make a better effort to include Jews in their own communities, helping to deconstruct the negative stereotype of Jews as working against them.

If the Jewish soldier I met 18 years ago would have taken the time to understand that I was in Jerusalem to sort out my feelings—not only about Israel but also about Palestine—we could have seen the shared commonalities in our faiths, our national loyalties, and our love for home…and perhaps even established a friendship.

I dream of a day when Muslims and Jews are closer to trusting one another as human beings, thus enabling us to continue the conversation.

Mehnaz M. Afridi teaches Judaism and Islam at various Southern California universities. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews), and is part of a series on Jewish-Muslim relations.