Fundamentalism in Islamic World
By Ahnaf Ishaq
Dec 09, 2016
Muslims across the globe are reacting in different ways to the label of fundamentalism, unilaterally imposed on them by west. Former Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Mahteer Mohammad is correct when he says that indeed we are fundamentalists, because a Muslim cannot remain a Muslim unless he follows strictly the fundamentals of his faith. The former President of Pakistan Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, is equally correct when he says that he is not a fundamentalist, because this label carries the connotation of being rigid and backward. Of course, it would be much simpler if west would use simple word, and not such a loaded term as ‘fundamentalism’, which means different things to different people.
The situation is complicated still further by the fact that historically the term ‘fundamentalism’ has been used in different contexts by western scholars of Christianity and of Islam.
In the context of Christianity, the term ‘fundamentalist’ was first used in the 1920s in the United States for a group protestant communions who believed in the verbal truth of the Bible. This group arose primarily to defend orthodox Christian Values against the onslaught of the liberals and the modernists, who attempted to assimilate the work of 19th century Biblical criticism and to make the Church relevant to the social dilemmas of that era. A half century later, while modernism and liberalism disappeared, fundamentalism has survived and is still flourishing in the United States. However, due to pejorative association of their rigid stand against Darwinism, fundamentalism began to call themselves Evangelicals and enjoy an impressive influence in many protestant denominations, as demonstrated by the popular saying:
‘Scratch A Protestant And You Would Find, A Fundamentalist’.
Most fundamentalists do not smoke or drink or usually do not dance or watch movies or plays. Thus, while in their outward traits, Christian and so-called Muslim fundamentalists may have certain similarities, they differ greatly in their inner content because the fundamentals of religion are same for all the Muslims, while in Christianity they differ from denomination to denomination. In the context of Islam, the western Islamic scholars (the Orientalist) have used the term ‘fundamentalism’ in a broad framework of four basic issues on which an intellectual and social battle has continued to rage within Islam. These four balanced tensions, while causing much instability, remain in creative and renovating motion and represent Islam’s unique and enduring mechanism for constant renewal.
Transcendence – Immanence:
The First Of These Tensions Revolves Around The Nature Of God:
The Quran projects a divinity which is personal, transcendental and ethical and asserts both the otherness and nearness of God. This transcendence immanence tension is at the heart of much of religious creativity. Islamic fundamentalists are trying to move society towards a greater emphasis on the transcendence of Allah, while the Sufi order emphasis His immanence. In other words, fundamentalists emphasise the law, while Sufis emphasized spirituality. None of them however, ignores the other aspect.
Diversity – Unity:
The second great dynamic tension in the Islamic world is between elements of diversity and unity in the cultural expressions of peoples within the Islamic Community. While there is a liberal attitude in Islam towards local cultures, the fundamentalists do not allow this process to continue to the point of destroying all common elements which made the definition of community possible. There is thus, a continuous tension within the community between the tendency towards flexibility and tolerance of popular custom on the one hand and a struggle to bring all practice in accord with the common Islamic ideal on the other.
Openness – Authenticity:
The third tension keeping Islamic activism alive is that between openness and authenticity- the openness being acceptance of the achievements of other cultures, while authenticity is striving to be faithful to one’s own culture. Islam emerged as a vitally open society, while remaining aware of its own authentic tradition on which the Islamic identity was passed. It never simply ‘borrowed’ but accepted ideas from other cultures in building upon and shaping already existing elements. At times however, there would be a tendency to move too far in one direction or the other. The fundamentalists in the Islamic tradition struggle to maintain the emphasis on authenticity, trying to move society in accordance with the religious law.
Fundamentalists aim at establishing an Islamic state closely resembling in law, justice and administration, the state as founded by the Prophet (SAW) and his first four pious caliphs; while the liberal attitude is that other forms of government might be acceptable if they continue in their set-up and procedures, to follow the spirit of Islam.
Separatism – Pan Islamism:
Geographical isolation and acute competition for scares resources on the one hand and the impact of new secular ideologies on the other have helped to perpetuate the spirit of separatism and rivalry which in most conflicts of interest, elevated the kinship of common blood or language above the brotherhood of faith. However, at the same time, the pan Islamic spirit runs deep in the Muslim psyche, as the Quran preaches against nationalism and considers all Muslims as one nation. Fundamentalists are fiercely pan Islamist, while the liberal attitude is to make an allowance for ethnicity.
An important distinction to be noted is that a fundamentalist in the Islamic tradition is not a conservative in the western sense because a fundamentalist believes in change. However, a fundamentalist wants society to return to the ideal period of Islam, whereas a liberal, while maintaining his link with the past, wants society to move dynamically into the future.
Therefore, in the context of Islam only some of the Muslims occupy the fundamentalist position. It should also be noted that the concepts and terms developed in the context of western culture and history are not relevant to Islam which has a social, political and economic orientation of its own. Islam is progressive in its social and economic values and in its own. Islam is progressive in its social and economic values and in its personal morality. This rather simple attitude is difficult to be visualized by the west, where historically religion has been associated with conservative economic values, while radical reformers mostly have been godless.
Now when we try to compare fundamentalism with modernisation, we find that the latter term is equally ambiguous. Of course, modernism does not imply that one should adopt blindly anything, any idea or any fashion which is new. Neither does it mean that one should blindly adopt anything which is Western. Although up to about the middle of this century, this indeed was the attitude, when most of our modernists were of the view that anything which was current in the west should be blindly adopted by the developing countries.
This mental attitude of the third world modernists was reciprocated by the conviction in the West of the superiority of their own industrial culture, their ill-found belief that every nation which progresses must travel their road and adopt their ways. Although this perception has now largely faded away, yet modernism does signify new concept and moulding of religious beliefs to the social requirements of the new times. However, it is to be appreciated that the spiritual content of modernism lies in moderation. If this definition of modernism is accepted, then we find that there is no conflict between Islam and modernism. In fact, moderation forms a major theme in the Quran. “Allah has raised the Muslim as the middle-most or a justly-balanced nation and has made it to stand as witness over other nations”.
Logically anyone who has been made to stand as a witness over others must occupy a neutral or a middle-most position. He must stand in the middle, as standing anywhere else would amount to taking sides and he would no longer remain reliable as a witness. Being the middle-most nation also implies an attitude of moderation, both in speech and actions.
The Quran ordains the believers to speak unto all people in a goodly manner, practice moderation and not to have extreme view or to follow extreme paths. In Islam even its economics (Iqtisad) carries a meaning of following the middle-path or being equally balanced, neither niggardly nor extravagant and holding neither excess nor less than what is needed. Man is warned by the Quran not to transgress the measure of what is right and to establish a social balance with an upright scale.
Thus, if by modernism we mean moderation, than Islam indeed is a modern and revolutionary faith, which is capable of meeting the needs, not only of the present era but also of the future.
Source: kashmirmonitor.in/Details/113857/fundamentalism-in-islamic-world
URL: https://newageislam.com/ijtihad-rethinking-islam/fundamentalism-islamic-world/d/109406