| advertise add site services publishers database health videos | ![]() | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Behavior Online Soapbox: Darwinian Fundamentalists and Trust behavior.net | Society for History of Islamic Medicine... ishim.net |
Islamic fundamentalism Arabic: usul (from usul, the "fundamentals"), is a term used to describe religious ideologies seen as advocating a return to the "fundamentals" of Islam: the Quran and the Sunnah. Definitions of the term vary. It is deemed problematic by those who suggest that Islamic belief requires all Muslims to be fundamentalists,[1] and by others as a term used by outsiders to describe perceived trends within Islam. [2] Exemplary figures of Islamic fundamentalism who are also termed Islamists are Sayyid Qutb and Abul Ala Mawdudi.[3]
[edit] DefinitionsAccording to American academic John Esposito, one of its most defining features of Islamic fundamentalism is belief in the "reopening" of the gates of Ijtihad.[4] Graham Fuller describes Islamic fundamentalism not as distinct from Islamism but as a subset, "the most conservative element among Islamists." Its "strictest form" includes "Wahhabism, sometimes also referred to as salafiyya. ... For fundamentalists the law is the most essential component of Islam, leading to an overwhelming emphasis upon jurisprudence, usually narrowly conceived." [5] Another American observer, Robert Pelletreau, Jr., assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, believes it the other way around, Islamism being the subset of Muslims "with political goals ... within" the "broader fundamentalist revival".[6] Still another, Martin Kramer, sees little difference between the two terms: "To all intents and purposes, Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism have become synonyms in contemporary American usage."[7] American historian Ira Lapidus calls Islamic fundamentalism "an umbrella designation for a very wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist, some pluralistic; some favourable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily devotional and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some pacific, some violent."[8] He distinguishes between mainstream Islamists and Fundamentalists, saying a fundamentalist is "a political individual" in search of a "more original Islam," while the Islamist is pursuing a political agenda. Author Olivier Roy distinguishes between fundamentalists (or neo-fundamentalists) and Islamists in describing fundamentalists as more passionate in their opposition to the perceived "corrupting influence of Western culture," avoiding Western dress, "neckties, laughter, the use of Western forms of salutation, handshakes, applause." While Islamists like
Other distinctions are in
[edit] ControversyThe term Islamic fundamentalism is often criticized. Bernard Lewis, a leading historian of Islam, has had this to say against it:
[7] John Esposito has attacked the term for its association "with political activism, extremism, fanaticism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism," saying "I prefer to speak of Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism."[13] However in 1988, the University of Chicago, backed by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, launched "the Fundamentalism Project", devoted to researching fundamentalism in the worlds major religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. It defined fundamentalism as "approach, or set of strategies, by which beleaguered believers attempt to preserve their distinctive identity as a people or group ... by a selective retrieval of doctrines, beliefs, and practices from a sacred past."[14] At least two Muslim academics have defended the use of the phrase. Syrian philosopher Sadik J. al-Azm, and Egyptian philosopher Hasan Hanafi. Surveying the doctrines of the new Islamic movements, Al-Azm found them to consist of "an immediate return to Islamic ‘basics' and ‘fundamentals.' .... It seems to me quite reasonable that calling these Islamic movements ‘Fundamentalist' (and in the strong sense of the term) is adequate, accurate, and correct."[15] Hasan Hanafi reached the same conclusion: "It is difficult to find a more appropriate term than the one recently used in the West, ‘fundamentalism,' to cover the meaning of what we name Islamic awakening or revival."[16] [edit] Interpretation of textsMuslims believe that the Qur'an is the unadulterated word of God as revealed to Muhammad through the angel Jibril (Archangel Gabriel). Islamic fundamentalists, or at least "reformist" fundamentalists, believe that Islam is based on the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah and "criticize the tradition, the commentaries, popular religious practices (maraboutism, the cult of saints), deviations, and superstitions. They aim to return to the founding texts." Examples of groups that adhere to this tendency are the 18th century Shah Waliullah in India and Abd al-Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula. [17] This view is commonly associated with Salafism today. [edit] Social and political goalsAs with adherents of other fundamentalist movements[18], Islamic fundamentalists hold that the problems of the world stem from secular influences. Further, they hold that the path to peace and justice lies in a return to the original message of Islam, combined with a scrupulous rejection of all Bid'ah ("religious innovation") and perceived anti-Islamic traditions.[citation needed] Some scholars of Islam, such as Bassam Tibi, believe that, contrary to their own message, Islamic fundamentalists are not actually traditionalists. He refers to fatwahs issued by fundamentalists such as "every Muslim who pleads for the suspension of the shari‘a is an apostate and can be killed". The killing of those apostates cannot be prosecuted under Islamic law because this killing is justified” as going beyond, and unsupported by, the Qur’an. Tibi asserts; “The command to slay reasoning Muslims is un-Islamic, an invention of Islamic fundamentalists”.[19][20] The immediate political goal of fundamentalists in the Indian sub-continent are the implementation of Sharia and in a larger time-frame, the creation of a Nation of Islam.[citation needed] A study by Freedom House found that Wahhabi publications in a number of mosques in the United States preach that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslims were infidels. [21][22] [edit] Conflicts with the secular stateIslamic fundamentalism's push for Sharia and an Islamic State has come into conflict with conceptions of the secular, democratic state, such as the internationally supported Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among human rights disputed by fundamentalist Muslims are:
[edit] Human rights controversy
Many secularist, human rights, and leading organisations have lampooned the Islamic world's stance on human rights and the associated Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, declaring, "We are deeply concerned with the changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of religion and would thus Islam's limited view of human rights. In view of the conditions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and religious dissenters-in short, protecting their citizens from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are worrying about 'protecting' Islam. (Free Inquiry, February/March 2009, Vol. 29, No. 2)" Human rights groups are also worried by the disdain Islam has had for human rights and its rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1984, Iran’s U.N. representative, Said Raja’i Khorasani, said the following amid allegations of human rights violations, "[Iran] recognized no authority ... apart from Islamic law ... conventions, declarations and resolutions or decisions of international organizations, which were contrary to Islam, had no validity in the Islamic Republic of Iran. . . . The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represented secular understanding of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, could not be implemented by Muslims and did not accord with the system of values recognized by the Islamic Republic of Iran; this country would therefore not hesitate to violate its provisions." This attitude of the Iranian government was discernible in the incident of Mona Mahmudnizhad wherein ten Bahá'í women were sentenced to death and hanged in Shiraz, Iran because of their membership in the Bahá'í Faith. There have been many instances of human rights violations in countries where the Sharia has been fully or partially implemented, and also in countries where the majority leader of the government openly subscribes the superiority of the Islamic faith over others.[citation needed] [edit] See also
[edit] References
[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links
[edit] Opposing views
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |