Muslim who is a fundamentalist is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and steadfastly pursues the same. It cannot have a negative bearing on his personality,” the Court said.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently observed that a fundamentalist Muslim should not be equated with an extremist or a separatist [Shahbaz Ahmad Palla Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors.].
Justice Atul Sreedharan made the observation while ordering the release of a 22-year-old man, who was detained last year under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act for allegedly promoting terrorist activities in Kashmir’s Pulwama.
One of the grounds on which his detention was justified was that he was a “hard core fundamentalist.”
The Court, however, termed this ground as vague and criticised the authorities for lucidly using the term “fundamentalist” without properly understanding what the term means.
The Court noted that the term “fundamentalist”, in the context of an Abrahamic faith, only denotes someone who steadfastly pursues or follows the fundamentals of such faith.
“Muslim who is a fundamentalist is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and steadfastly pursues the same. It cannot have a negative bearing on his personality. The same is as a fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist or a separatist,” the Court explained.
The Court further pointed out that the dictionary defines fundamentalism as “the strict maintenance of traditional orthodox religious beliefs of doctrines; ESP belief in the inerrancy of scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of protestant Christianity.”
The Court proceeded to set aside the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama upon finding that government was unable to back up the allegations made by it against the detenue.
The detenue had been accused of working as part of a terror outfit known as ‘The Resistance Front’ (TRF). The Court was told that the TRF was part of the erstwhile Lashkar-e-Taiba (Let).
He was detained in April 2022, following the District Magistrate’s order. His father then moved the High Court challenging the preventive detention order on various grounds.
The Court ultimately quashed the detention order after also noting that there was no sufficient material to indicate that the accused detenue had joined the TRF as claimed.
Advocate Shabir Ahmad appeared for the detenue’s father. Deputy Advocate General Rais-u-din Ganie and Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway appeared for the government authorities.
