(Pervaiz Sahib prompted me for the following write up. It briefly addresses Dr. Nizami’s comments also). 

Thank you Pervaiz Sahib, Mark Robinson & Dr. Khalid Sohail for organizing the seminar and opportunity for me to do my slide presentation on “Fundamentalism”. It was nice to see old and new friends at the seminar on the day of first snow the season. I have been able to dig out of Toronto snow in only two days :). Now, I am back to the cozy corner of my little winter-den in Buffalo. 

Due to time constraints it was hard to appropriately treat every question raised in the seminar. There are 3 significant issues that I wish to touch on now, if I may: 

1. Fundamentalism is only going back to fundamentals of an ideology.

It is true that fundamentalism is going back to few necessary constituents of an ideology. However, fundamentalism is a dogmatic and literalist vision of the past that seeks assortment of current problems and of the future by looking backward in time.  Therefore, I call fundamentalism as an “Intellectual Nostalgia”.  

Allow me to dispel the misconception, “Fundamentalism is adhering to few fundamentals of an ideology”. Philosophically, this view is very problematic in my opinion because it does not fall in line with any definition of an “ism”. Let me clarify: 

[For any ideology to be an “ism” there has to be at least 3 characteristics … An “ism” has to provide a theoretical tool for analysis of history, an ideological tool for values, culture and identity and political tool for organizing society and social structure. Limiting an “ism” to few rules, practices or events (called super-structure of history) of historical past is not “ism”. This method of analysis can be universally applied to any “ism” be it Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism and so on]. 

Therefore, I think it is simply not enough to think of fundamentalism as going back to fundamentals of any religion or book of rules. There is a lot more to fundamentalism as an “ism”. By the same token, I might add that it is the same kind of misunderstanding that revolves around “Humanism” …. Humanitarian and compassionate attitude towards other human beings is not “Humanism” in a philosophical sense. 

2. Taliban in Afghanistan were able to successfully root out narcotics from Afghanistan, hence their vision should be recognized as an appropriate paradigm.

It is correct that Taliban were able to suppress narcotics same as it is true that Christians under banner of church in the US fought a remarkable battle against forces that had encoded slavery into the social system. The exploitative forces aligned with secular democratic forces in the US.  

Even though battle against some iniquity could be fought by fundamentalist forces, they still deserve careful evaluation, I think. The forces that suppress or support suppression of some of the “key values” in the society (that I had listed in my slide-presentation) can be termed fundamentalist forces. Terrorism and/or violence represent only a methodology for imposing a certain vision on others. It has had many patrons in the history … religious, secularist, nationalist etc. 

3. The following was the most important question: What does it mean by ‘education’ as an antidote to fundamentalism?

Finally question on education … what kind of education? Simply put, I think education is the back bone of “A Meaning System for Life” what human beings curiously seek. Its spectrum ranges from dogmatic to rationalist thinking and thereby corresponding philosophic conceptions that range from fundamentalism to secularism. 

Any education from moral to technical that provides tools for an independent life is reasonable. The proof of this assertion comes from Japan for which there was not enough time for discussion in the seminar. Theoretically, if rise of fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan is explained by a long devastating war then post-nuclear bomb Japan should have taken the same course, which obviously she did not.  

I believe the answer is “Meiji Restoration” that was implemented about 100 years prior to 2^nd World War. 100% literacy rate as a result of Meiji Restoration helped post-war Japan quickly reconstruct herself and stand tall in the world. Thus, there was no need for solving problems of ‘present’ with the help of mythical-past or flagellation of society by reactionary forces. 

Japanese experience tells us that even secular and technical education can fill the void as a “Meaning-System for Life” in the human psyche that religious education has historically claimed as its domain. In fact, secular and technical education could do a real good job provided there is existential and economic security in the society. 

Of course, any input on this subject is welcome but I sometimes wonder if it is sufficient to recount past events of history, rephrase ideological variations of religious philosophies or paraphrase ancient myths to provide an avant-garde vision for the world where poverty and injustice is rampant?  

Kind regards,