Fundamentalism as a Cultural Justification for Violent Extremism: The Case of Boko Haram

Fundamentalism and violent extremism are two concepts that are usually intertwined but whose distinct meanings are often confused. Fundamentalism can be defined as the literal interpretation of and complete adherence to a religious or ideological text at the expense of human life. Fundamentalists exhibit four key characteristics: first, they interpret scripture literally, placing greater value on the written word than on human life. Second, a fundamentalist is someone who would sacrifice a person for the sake of their beliefs. Third, fundamentalist groups share a similar political stance, as they are typically reactionary; consequently, they hold anti-secular views and generally reject liberalism, which they perceive as an imminent threat to their traditional beliefs. Finally, fundamentalist groups draw a very sharp distinction between “in-group” and “out-group.”

Delving further into the first concept and limiting the analysis to scripture-based religions alone, fundamentalist doctrines are strictly based on a literal understanding of the sacred texts. This approach rests on the view that right is directly established by God as a positive divine legislator, whose authority is not bound by logic, reason, or any requirement of internal coherence. Consequently, religious interpretation is shaped around the literal understanding of the deity or deities as presented in the scriptures, rather than focusing on the essence of the deity itself. This leads fundamentalists to interpret the text through a voluntarist theological lens, which results in moral arbitrariness; thus, what is morally right and wrong is based on divine command. Any deviation from the divine command—the scripture itself—is therefore considered sacrilege. In a sense, the written law is viewed as more divine than God himself—a kind of idol to whom humans can be sacrificed. Consequently, because of this sacred understanding of scripture, scriptural inerrancy takes precedence over human dignity; since the text is God-given, it is unquestionable, resulting in a “dogmatic” faith that evolves into doctrinal absolutism. 

Moral codes in fundamentalist groups are meticulous because they are considered sacred in and of themselves: these strict interpretations create a strong sense of homogeneity within the group. Furthermore, the fear of breaking a divine command is very high; violating even the smallest rule is considered sacrilege (a sin), and the punishment for such acts can lead to expulsion or even physical violence, as some religious texts stipulate. These radical interpretations of divine command lead to the radicalization of a community and the creation of a strong in-group. It is interesting that what brings the community together in the first place is not only the fear of the out-group, but also the dehumanization within the in-group, through which the individual loses his or her individuality as all members of the group become a single entity.[1]

Turning to the sociological aspect, fundamentalist groups naturally become radicalized by accentuating exceptionalism and emphasizing parochialism. The reactionary nature of most of these groups arises spontaneously as a mechanism to protect their doctrine from being altered by external influences; rather than returning to the past, they select specific doctrines from the past and reuse them to counter the values of out-groups.[2] Thus, fundamentalists create very strong in-groups with a highly distinctive radical lifestyle that sets them apart from the out-groups they consider “inferior” or “hostile.” In fact, these distinctions are necessary for them to reaffirm their identity.[3]

Contrary to common stereotypes, fundamentalists do not necessarily resort to violence; for example, the Amish[4] and the ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jews live in peace and adhere to doctrines that forbid any form of armed struggle.[5] Instead, violent extremists use violence as a tool to achieve political or ideological goals—which may be religious, political, economic, social, ethnic, or nationalist in nature—and which can stem from a variety of political views, social, and cultural backgrounds.

So why do we hear so much about violent fundamentalist extremism, such as jihadist groups? Why is it so prevalent, especially in the poorest, war-torn countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)? Most importantly, how and why do violent extremism and fundamentalism overlap?

According to Galtung’s triangle of violence, cultural values play an important role in legitimizing violence, whereby cultural violence, combined with structural violence, sustains direct violence. Using this model, it is possible to argue that fundamentalism is the cultural force that creates an enabling framework for violence to unfold, as the doctrines themselves subject individuals to scripture, dehumanizing people and further fostering a strong sense of exceptionalism. Furthermore, fundamentalism emphasizes the social divide between the in-group and the out-group, which, combined with systemic structural injustice and poverty, results in a dangerous mix that can escalate into direct violence.[6]

Case Study: Boko Haram

The case of Boko Haram may help to prove this thesis. Boko Haram—or, by its official name, Ahl al-Sunnah li-l-Da’awah wa al-Jihad—is a Sunni jihadist terrorist group (based on a radical interpretation of the concept of jihad and Sharia law) founded in 2002 by Mohammed Yusuf in the northern region of Borno in Nigeria, which borders Niger and Cameroon. Boko Haram is the name given to the terrorist organization by the people living in Maiduguri and adopted by the organization itself; in Hausa, it literally means “Westernization is Sacrilege”[7] (“Sacrilege” is the translation provided by Britannica, but “Haram” is an Islamic term better translated as “forbidden”[8]). The name can be analyzed as a label that encapsulates both the religious fundamentalist aspect and the reactionary political stance of Boko Haram. The organization’s unofficial name immediately defines the out-group: “Westerners.” The group’s name further explains why “Westerners” are the evil enemies: they commit sacrilege by going against God’s will. Thus, Boko Haram portrays itself as the champion defending Islam while clearly defining an in-group and an out-group.

Boko Haram seeks to achieve its ideological goals through violence; therefore, we can say that it is a violent fundamentalist extremist group. This group began large-scale operations in 2009, but due to various military operations in the region, its overall capacity has been weakened, although it continues to carry out terrorist attacks, particularly targeting Christians. How is it possible that, despite so many efforts—such as Operation Barkhane (2014–2022) and the G5 Sahel’s efforts to eradicate violent fundamentalist extremism in the Sahel—these terrorist organizations continue to grow and attract followers in the region? The analysis provided by Cambridge scholars Mustapha and Meagher in their book *Overcoming Boko Haram: Faith, Society, and Islamic Radicalization in Northern Nigeria*[9], when considered alongside Galtung’s triangle, can shed light on how fundamentalism can fuel violent extremism. 

Using this case study, we can analyze how fundamentalism fuels cultural violence. This aspect of the crisis stems directly from the radical interpretation of Islam by some ulama (Muslim scholars) in Borno. As Mustapha and Meagher point out, the “dual role of the ulama” is pivotal in radicalizing and counter-radicalizing people.[10] Religion is a hot-button issue and can become a highly polarizing topic; terrorist groups exploit it by transforming it into an ideology to justify violence and maintain the support of their members. Fundamentalism is more malleable than other religious interpretations; its doctrinal absolutism makes it more conducive to exploitation, as a dogmatic interpretation of religion makes it easier to justify certain actions and maintain control over individuals. However, in this case, the fundamentalist religious interpretation is not only a tool for controlling people but, more importantly, the rationale behind the creation of Boko Haram—a clear example of how a fundamentalist group can evolve to become the driving force behind violent extremism, as explained by Barkindo: “Consequently, like Ibn Taymiyya, Boko Haram believed that the reformation of Islam and the implementation of Islamic law remain the only viable options for social justice and prosperity.”[11]

In the 1980s, the influence of Salafism gave rise to fundamentalist stances.[12] Radical fundamentalist narratives penetrated Islamic schools in the region prior to the partner crises, which amplified those narratives by giving rise to radical ideas that led to jihadism. In this case, Boko Haram is motivated and driven by beliefs that set the diary their actions. They also further instrumentalize Islam for their political goals, as the jihadist fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia justifies the violent struggle and atrocious human rights violations in the region.

Boko Haram, for one, promotes the narrative of Muslim victimhood, accusing the Nigerian state of promoting secular influences with the aim of creating tensions among Muslims against the state and other communities. The group exploits local poverty and postcolonial grievances to justify its political aims and instill hatred in people; as the group’s founder, Muhammed Yusuf, preached: “Our land was an Islamic state before it was turned into a land of ‘kafir’ (infidels); the current system is contrary to true Muslim beliefs.”[13] This statement reflects what the organization stands for and is also a clear example of the instrumentalization of religion to reinforce historical grievances.

Boko Haram does not have the support of the Nigerian people (79% view it very unfavorably[14]). The operations carried out by the authorities, however, were mainly aimed at direct violence rather than the structural and cultural root causes of the problem, thereby only provoking a stronger response from terrorist organizations in the region, which has led to the current ongoing spiral of violence. The organization takes advantage of catastrophic humanitarian crises to recruit new followers, as many join out of despair or a lack of options, seeing no future in the region; while some are forced into the organization, others choose to join voluntarily.[15]  

Fundamentalist communities are more prone to

In conclusion, violent extremism is more likely to arise in fundamentalist groups, even though their doctrines do not necessarily entail it; because they are “per se” radical and are based on exceptionalism and parochialism, fundamentalist groups are more likely to trigger and justify violence. Furthermore, fundamentalist communities are more likely to be manipulated and exploited for political reasons due to their dogmatic doctrine and their in-group and out-group narratives.

Applying Galtung’s theory, attempting to resolve fundamentalist extremism by targeting only direct violence triggers a never-ending spiral of violence. Instead, cultural violence should be addressed first: in the context of Boko Haram, by engaging with Ulamas to prevent the radicalization of isolated Islamic communities and by investing more in the region to fill power vacuums. Perhaps promoting dialogue and openness is the first step toward understanding the way of life of these fundamentalist groups and building a constructive dialogue to prevent the spread of violence.