Q231 :The basic tenets of Islam are clearly defined
and they must be adopted and implemented by every Muslim. However, we
often hear the adjective ‘fundamentalist’ attached to certain groups of
Muslims whose activities are described as ‘Islamic fundamentalism”.
Others who do not seem to fall in the same category are called
‘moderates’. Could you please throw some light on these terms?
A231 : The words ‘fundamentalist’ and
‘fundamentalism’ have only recently nete to be used in association with
Islamic advocacy. These words made their appearance in the Western
media early in the 1970s [when we had Bhutto’s regime in Pakistan],
when they were highly ambiguous. Only few people had any real sense of
what they meant and why these terms were floated. With hindsight, we
can probably trace the usage of these terms and find out why these were
invented and their present significance. In the late sixties and early
seventies, Western media seemed unsure of how to describe the trend of
Islamic revival and its advocates in the Muslim world. The Western
media, however, was keenly aware that Islam revivalism could gather
strong momentum and have a great influence on the course of events in
Arab countries and in the Muslim world at large. The Arabs had just
emerged from a very bitter defeat which they suffered at the hands of
Israelis in the 1967 war. I recall reading a main feature published in
one of the main Sunday newspapers in England by Watt Montgomery, a
prominent Orientalist, analyzing the situation in the Middle East and
clearly pointing out that in their defeat the Arabs could easily turn
to Islam and start an Islamic revival. Such early warnings highlighted
the need for the Western world to choose how to deal with the
forthneting trend. It is beyond the scope of this column to analyze
the relationship between the West and Islam or to outline its
historical background, but there is no disputing the fact that the West
is highly interested in maintaining its supremacy throughout the world
and a weak and divided Muslim world. Let us be clear on one thing: Some
of us appear to do much worse than any colonial power in deepening
divisions in the Muslim world. In the final analysis, however, we find
that these belong to one of the three groups: (1) Simple and naive
people who do not realize what causes they are serving; (2)
Non-believers who pretend to be Muslims; and (3) Agents who have sold
themselves to forces hostile to Islam. Many reasons can be given why
those who wield the greatest power on world stage are interested in
maintaining the status quo but we do not need to go into that in
detail. What we are saying is that after the 1967 war, the Western
media realized that there was need for a change of emphasis in its
approach to Islamic questions. Up to the mid-sixties, even the serious
and quality papers in the West did not hesitate to describe Islamic
revivalist movements in very harsh terms. This was part of the residue
of the colonial past. In one Muslim area after another, the fight for
liberation and independence was started by leaders who were keen to
preserve the Islamic identity of their netmunities. While patriotic
elements were ready to join the fight, it was the advocates of Islam
who took the leading role, mobilized the people, marshaled the forces
and provided most of the fighters and the martyrs. It was in the nature
of things that the imperial power should paint a very unattractive
picture of the Islamic revivalist movement which sought to oust them
from their colonies. By the mid-sixties all that had changed. There
were only a very few areas still in imperialist hands. The newly
independent Muslim countries were now under nationalist governments.
But the specter of Islamic revival continued to scare the old and the
new imperialist powers. Their age-long prejudice against Islam was not
expected to disappear only because they have been kicked out of their
old colonies. The prejudice was still very much in the minds of Western
writers, intellectuals and journalists. Some of them tried to
consciously suppress it because they realized that it was contrary to
their ideals of freedom. Some wanted simply to appear to be objective
when they discussed the Islamic matters, though, they were not free
from prejudices. To them, Islam represented a hostile force and they
were not ashamed to appear to be hostile to Islam and its advocates. It
is against this background that the term fundamentalism was first
floated as a description of the Islamic revivalist movement. At first,
it was not met with much enthusiasm. But frequent use and strong
hammering meant that in a few years, every one was using it, mostly
disapprovingly, in reference to Islamic advocacy. Many writers felt
uneasy about the term itself because of its historical Christian
associations. Nevertheless, the term stuck and it is now in vogue. Let
us now have a brief look at the meaning of this word. The Shorter
Oxford Dictionary defines fundamentalism as “Strict adherence to
traditional orthodox tenets held to be fundamental to the Christian
faith”. It gives as an example of these tenets, “the concept of the
verbal inerrancy of the Scriptures”. The dictionary also states that
fundamentalism is opposed to ‘liberalism’ and ‘modernism’. Thus, to a
Western Christian mind, the term ‘fundamentalist’ refers to a person
who rigidly believes that every word in the Bible is strictly correct
and must be unhesitatingly followed. This is contrary to the belief of
most Christians, including churchmen, throughout the West. Thus, the
main thrust of the word is rigidity and rejection of any netpromise.
Historically speaking, there has always been a strong conflict between
those who advocated a rigid and strict understanding and application of
the Scripture and those who favored a more liberal one. Except for very
brief periods in European history, rigidity was mostly on the losing
side. In our present age, Christian fundamentalism is often viewed as
being in marked contrast to the sensible liberalism of modern
civilization. When the word was used in reference to Islam and
Muslims, it carried all those unfavorable connotations and netbined
them with others derived from the Western prejudice against Islam and
the West’s lack of understanding of the motives and ideals of the
Islamic revivalist movements. Today, however, the word is used in a
much wider sense. It includes all those who believe that it is the duty
of Muslims to implement Islam in their lives at the individual and the
netmunity levels. What is even worse is that it blames all the mistakes
of different Islamic movements and groupings who are active in politics
on Islamic fundamentalism. Unfortunately, the media in the Muslim
world are now using an equivalent of fundamentalism in reference to
Islamic revival. Thus they paint the call for the revival of Islam in
unfavorable colors. This is a logical result of our continued look at
the West as superiors to us. We borrow anything from the West, even its
prejudices against us! In Islam, the whole concept of fundamentalism
is totally irrelevant. Every Muslim believes that the Qur’an is the
word of Allah and that it has been preserved intact as it was revealed
to the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) over 1400 years ago. By
definition, then, every Muslim must be a fundamentalist. I have not
touched upon the question of extremism which is associated with the
Islamic movement nowadays. This is a totally different question, but I
can say in brief that Islam does not approve of extremism. It describes
the Muslim netmunity as a ‘middle’ netmunity. Extremism is indeed alien
to proper Islamic outlook.
Our Dialogue ( Source : Arab News – Jeddah )