The purpose of this essay is to propose a new definition of Islamic Fundamentalism by including attitudes which are not usually considered fundamentalist. We must remember that words acquire meanings through usage and because of the huge media coverage terrorist acts get and the fact that ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ as a phrase is widely used in these reports, the phrase has come to have a narrow meaning. That helps to obfuscate the true breadth of Islamic Fundamentalism.

This brings us to the question of what is ‘fundamentalism’ and what is its opposite, which we identify from popular usage as ‘moderation’ (as in Moderate Islam).

What is fundamentalism if not only terrorism? For the term to accurately represent the reality of what it signifies in the world, it must also identify the potential sources of what brings about violent acts and not simply violent acts themselves. Therefore, fundamentalism is an exclusivist attitude. It revels in not only being right but being the only right. Because of this, it needs an ‘other’ on which it focuses feelings of negativity and this other is not usually not an ethical other but rather a nominal other. Islamic Fundamentalism cares not that the West has values that are very similar to the Quran but focuses on the nominal existence of something other than itself, that is The West as a separate existence.

Islamic Fundamentalism as an exclusivist attitude manifests in a few different forms:

1. The desire to resurrect the Islamic Empire. Fundamentalists believe that the Islamic empire is the most superior form of political expression and civilisational existence. They look to the historical Islamic Caliphate as the epoch of political existence and desire its return.
2. The movement towards the total implementation of Shariah Laws. They view Shariah laws as an absolute entity validated by God and thus obligated upon everyone . Their endeavour is to bring about Shariah laws as an exclusive legal system because every other legal system is viewed as man-made and thus illegitimate.
3. The attachment for the pan-arabic socio-culture called ‘The Ummah’. While Muslims share a common bond due to their cultural origins and this makes them an entity, Islamic Fundamentalists see this entity as absolute and is in a conflicting dynamic with people not from this cultural origin. Muslim Fundamentalists living with non-Muslims in a given polity will find themselves supporting any polity of a similar cultural origin over their own nation.

These three manifestations are attitudes held by Muslim individuals and organisations. They do not normally manifest in violent activities but certainly, their attitude of exclusivism brings about feelings of dissociation from the rest of the world and feelings of superiority with accompanied arrogance.

Therefore, by definition and behaviour, Muslim (by which we refer to those of a certain socio-cultural origin) individuals and organisations that exhibit these positions must be seen as Islamic Fundamentalists and treated accordingly.

What is the opposite of Islamic Fundamentalism if we adopt the aforementioned definition? A logical answer would be ‘Islamic Inclusivism’. ‘Islamic Inclusivism’ would be an attitude displayed by Muslim individuals and organisations that accept and embrace other organisations in the course of a common goal.

Does original Islam (Islam from its criteria and as practised by Mohamed) accept Islamic inclusivism and if so, what are the common goal which Islamic inclusivism can share with the rest of the world? We will analyse that in the next article ‘Islamic Inclusivism and Original Islam’.

I believe that there are issues which should emote the Muslims, because they are people who believe in the Quran and the Quran denounces certain things most strongly. Funnily enough, these issues do not include things like drawing the Prophet’s pictures in an insulting manner. In the Quran, for anyone who insults or mocks the Prophet or Muslims the right response is to simply ignore them, walk past them, give them greetings of peace or to tell them that the Muslims would continue working for a better world.

Here are some issues which should find Muslims take to the streets to peacefully protest (as well as to strive against)…but don’t :

1. Poverty. Poverty is such a problem in the world that 3 billion people subsist on the less than 2USD daily! The Quran actually equates a person’s generosity to the orphans and the poor to his truthfulness to Islam and so it’s a vital thing for Muslims to be against poverty in any shape or form. Yet we do not see Muslims protesting against this sorry state in the world.

2. Honour Killings – a problem in Pakistan and Bangladesh, two countries with an almost 100% Muslim populace. Yet we do not see Muslims take the streets protesting strongly against this blatant disregard for Allah’s command. Muslims are told in the Quran that if they saved a life, it would as if saving a life of the entire human race.

3. Child labour – a problem again all over the world world. Children are being trafficked by nefarious individuals, forcing them to move across borders to work. Muslims are told in the Quran that children are a gift from God and so must feel strongly about the exploitation of children but once again, we do not see Muslims protesting.

4. Suppression of Cultures – in the UK, political correctness has pushed native English culture into the underground, even saying that the public display of the St Georges Flag to be offensive to the ethnic minorities. The Quran posits recognition of all lineages and cultures and so, Muslims should protest against the suppression of any one culture.

5. Death Fatwas by Religious Authorities. When religious authorities declare death sentences against anyone, Muslims should protest because the Quran only permits the taking of life in case of actual fighting or as a retaliation for murder yet they are silent on the matter.

7. Terrorism : This is the major issue burning in people’s minds at present with the ‘war on terror’. Muslims have shown their disapproval of terrorism but has that been enough? For what the terrorists are said to have done, the intensity of protest should be loud and clear and terrorists should be clearly expelled and dissociated from Muslim communities. Yet for this ‘make or break’ issue, once again Muslims have failed to show a voice loud enough to make it clear.

It is not too late to get Muslim values straight. The source is ready to be looked into, the Quran. All a person has to do is engage with it and acquire its values and his priorities will be straight once again.

At the centre of this journey is you, the one who undertakes this journey, the human being. He is in a power-relationship with Allah, the One God. In this power-relationship, the human being is to serve God and to give over himself to God. This entails obeying God’s commands and also baptising himself in God’s baptism, which is to affect God’s attributes upon himself.

The human being is to carry out God’s work, bringing peace into the world. This is the meaning of the word ‘al-islaam’, ‘the attainment of as-salaam’, the bringing into the world attributes like peace, harmony, freedom from wants and fallibilities. This is the duty of the ‘al-muslim’, the person who has undertaken this power-relationship with Allah.

The human being is to build and increase his faith in Allah. This he does by observing Allah’s signs in the world and in himself. As he goes along in the journey, the signs keep coming to pass and he finds himself in events which contain the manifestations of Allah in the world. As these signs intensify and he finds peace in them, he becomes ‘al-mumin’, one whose ‘imaan’ or faith brings total peace.

The human is to establish and maintain his connection with Allah. This he does by focussing upon God through his signs either in the Quran or in reality. He is to also act upon the signs inspired on him. This is how he establishes the connection, ‘as-salaat’. Through this connection, Allah takes him along the journey.

The human being is to keep evolving his soul. His soul can only be evolved by neutralising its false realities so that it may focus on the true reality. The human being must keep recognising the signs in his soul which show concealment to God’s law. In time, he will find his soul in total peace with the reality of God and that is when he will enter the garden.

The human being on this journey focusses on justice. It is through the establishment of the expressions of justice that he purifies his allegiance to God. This justice knows no bounds and is for all human beings with whom there is peace.

And finally, when the human being has reached a certain level of faith, characterised by his exclusive servitude to Allah, Allah will raise him unto a high platform in the world, as a foretaste of his achievement in the afterworld. In this high platform, his life will be symbolised by the metaphor of a garden with rivers flowing the underneath. The water symbolises the ever-flowing blessings from Allah and the garden as we can see in the world has leaves which provide us shade, fruits which provides us sustenance and flowers which provide us beauty. This is the end goal of Islam in the world, to lead this life of peace, security and to experience the beauties of life.

This is the human being originalised. This is the purpose of Islam in the world.

Strangely enough, in the discourse regarding apostasy, the one source which I find silent – or perhaps silenced – is The Quran. Rather what we find are notions of insulting Islam and various rehashes on this theme without ever relying on the Quran. Here we must applaud the four imams of the schools of jurisprudence who selflessly declared that any law in contradiction to the Quran must be discarded. I salute their appreciation of Islam’s fluidity.

The Quran tells us that ‘there is no compulsion in the deen’ (Al-baqarah, 256). The upholders of the apostasy law have responded by saying that this only applies to the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, in which there is no compulsion. I believe that they have overlooked certain things in coming to that conclusion, namely:

a. There is no exceptional clause ‘illa’ (except). Had God wished, he would have clearly said that there is compulsion for Muslims as an exception to the ‘no compulsion’ rule.
b. Although the Quran uses the word ‘tadkhul’ (enter) in other places such as Al-Baqarah 208 (udkhuloo fissilmi kaafah/enter into Islam holistically) it does not use that phraseology in this verse.
c. Although the Quran uses the word ‘irtidad’ (ridda, turning back, from which the word ‘murtad’ is derived) it never uses it in this verse.

From here, we can see that when the Quran states that ‘there is no compulsion in the deen’ it’s an unqualified statement. There are no exceptional clauses and any words which could have been used to set any exceptions to this law are conspicuously absent. Therefore, we must conclude that there is a total and absolute lack of compulsion in the deen. The rest of this verse also confirms thus when it says: guidance stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects excessive authorities and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks….showing that faith is something active where one has to reject excessive gods and believe. This is a conscious process which people who do not believe will not undertake.

What about people who leave off belief?

Anyone who, after accepting faith in God, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from God, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.(An-Nahl, 106)

From here we can see that, even though elsewhere in the Quran are commands to fight certain parties who commit crimes, the command to do so is missing from this verse. It is God who judges those who choose to reject faith.

This is clearly confirmed by this next verse:

Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- God will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way (An-Nisaa, 137)

How is it possible for a person to oscillate between belief and disbelief if there is no freedom in the deen?

Firaun – The Compeller

Ironically, the one who displays compulsive behaviour in the Quran is none other than the enemy of God – Firaun, who says a number of things to that effect:

(Pharaoh) said: “Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! Be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!” (Ta-Ha, 71)

So Firaun adamantly attaches the emergence of belief to his permission, conjecturing that it’s something artificial, to which one has to give permission for. Isn’t this the same compulsive disposition which makes us react to people who wish to leave Islam? That they wish to inflict punishment on people for not believing when belief is something inward and not artificial?

Said Pharaoh: “Leave me to slay Moses; and let him call on his Lord! What I fear is lest he should change your religion, or lest he should cause mischief to appear in the land.” (Ghafir, 26)

Again Firaun displays the quality of fear with regards to Musa’s religion. His system depends on the compelling of people to adhere to this system. For the believers, they are said to have no fear (Yunus, 62)

The claim of Al-Baqarah 217 and An-Nisaa 89

Some scholars have interpreted Al-Baqarah 217 which ends with ‘and who returns from you from his religion, so he dies and he is disbelieving, so those wasted/failed their doings/works in the present world and (in) the end (other life), and those are the owners/company (of) the fire, they are in it immortally/eternally’ as an instruction to kill apostates. How can one accept this interpretation when the Quran – although it uses the words punishment (azab), kill (aqtul), harb (war) and other commands to aggress where appropriate – never alludes let alone advocates any action from the Muslims?

The other verse which has been interpreted to invoke an apostasy law is An-Nisaa, 89 which states:

They wished/loved if you disbelieve, as they disbelieved, so you become equal/alike. So do not take from them allies, until they emigrate in God’s sake, so if they turned away, so take/punish them and fight/kill them, where/when you found them, and do not take from them an ally , and nor a supporter/savior

It’s a pity that those exegetes who interpreted this failed to see the very next verse which states:

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people.

This verse is definitely not about people who leave Islam or stopped believing but rather about people who although have no love for Islam, do have a treaty between them and the Muslims.

The reliance on numbers

I often hear Muslims speak proudly of their growing numbers in the world, how there are 1.2 billion of them and Islam is the fastest growing religion. Perhaps this is what emotes them when they find people who wish to leave. The Quran however does not teach such a mentality:

Assuredly Allah did help you in many battlefields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat (At-Taubaa, 25)

From here we can see that it’s not the numbers which makes the Islamic struggle fruitful.

Another verse goes:

If ye help not (your leader), (it is no matter): for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion; they two were in the cave, and he said to his companion, “Have no fear, for Allah is with us”…(At-Taubaa, 40)

This is a great lesson to learn from the Messenger’s pattern of behaviour. He had faith in God even in a situation where he only had one companion.

Yet Another verse tells us:

Abraham was indeed nation unto himself, devoutly obedient to Allah, (and) true in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah’ (An-Nahl, 120)

So Prophet Ibrahim is said to be an ummah unto himself. This is the power of pure faith as Ibrahim is always described as ‘a fully-inclined Muslim, never was he an associator’.

There is little doubt in my mind that there are parties in the world who wish to disparage the Muslims in order to find support for their own nefarious ends. There are information centres who purposely bend and even break the truth to do this. Muslims have enough real problems to deal with without creating artificial ones like apostasy.

It is God in His wisdom to not only not set a law against apostasy, but also to declare that such an mentality of control is anathematic to Islam. We can see this from the fact that it is Firaun who carries such an attitude, not the Muslims. Muslims should rely upon the quality of individuals who are contributive to the betterment of world. This contributiveness was present in early Arab-Islamic history but is missing now. Perhaps when Muslims regain that position, they will see that it’s really not about the numbers of the faithful, but the faith in those numbers.

What is Islamic Fundamentalism?

In this discourse, Islam is a particular socio-culture, a possible home to any ideological superimposition and therefore before originalisation it is possible for Islamic fundamentalism to exist. The definitions of fundamentalism is this contexts are:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles
3. the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth.

None of the definitions above really suit the popular image of the Muslim Fundamentalist with the exception of the opposition to secularism. Islamic Fundamentalism , as popularly used usually indicate the following dispositions:

1. The permissibility of violence against anyone who opposes them.
2. The intention to create an Islamic superstate (self-labelled) which comprises the entire world.
3. The upholding of Sharia Law.

Islamic Fundamentalism, as defined above exists amongst Muslims. I cannot say for sure the popularity of such thinking. Statisticians themselves are at odds as to how high this figure is but I have personally encountered people who hold these views.

However, a more important question should be, can Islamic Fundamentalism stand in the face of scrutiny?

When we essentialise Islam (i.e. bring it back to the dimension of ideology as opposed to culturality which as we have stated above, opens it to any ideological superimposition), will Islamic Fundamentalism still stand as a valid conceptual entity?

If our validity is measured by the Quran, the answer is no.

If Islamic Fundamentalists attempt realise their goals through a violent conflict, creating chaos on earth and robbing of it of safety (amn) and beautiful balance (ihsan), then the Quran calls such people criminals, denying their belief in God and the Last Day.

If they create a state which profiles people according to religio-cultural heritage as opposed to their agreement to the social contract, they are in opposition with the Quran once again as the Quran judges people according to their mindfulness to goodness and decency.

If if in this state, they disallow people of Muslim cultural origin to join other religo-cultures and forcibly stop them, they are once again at odds with the Quran, which allows freedom of belief for anyone and everyone.

These three examples above aren’t peripheral to either Islamic Fundamentalism or the Quran. They represent issues which are fundamental to both. The Quran is the source of Islam and can re-ideologise it and liberate it from the realm of culture, in effect essentialise it. The Quran’s proposal for humankind is their liberation from the shackles of human authority so that they may flow with the universal will and evolve and this as anyone may witness from what Islamic Fundamentalism believes, this isn’t the case.

Islamic Fundamentalism therefore is a fundamental contradiction, in that for something to be described as fundamentalist in the way it’s described, it cannot possibly be Islamic.

I begin my discourse of Islam by fixing definitions. Since the word ‘Islam’ is used in so many different ways, I had to choose a criteria to determine the usage of the word.

My criteria was normative usage, that is usage by my experience of the discourse of Islam in the world.

In practice, this means that I tentatively accept the defintion of ‘Islam’ and subsequently of ‘Muslims’ used most commonly in the world.

The word ‘Islam’ refers to the socio-cultural entity which came into existence due to the historical phenomena of Mohamed ibn Abdullah of Arabia. Anyone born into this entity or adopts this entity as a result of conversion is named a ‘Muslim’.

It may seem strange that I do not choose the ’shahaada’ (the witnessing of God’s oneness and Muhammad ibn Abdullah’s messengership) as the criteria but this definition cannot be used for the following reasons:

1. We cannot possibly verify who has taken the shahada. This would entail asking over a billion people, an untenable task and we cannot know if they give correct information.

2. The language which pervades in the world, especially in the media identifies the Muslim as one from the aforementioned socio-cultural entity. Therefore, in any critical situations, Muslims would be identified by their socio-culture.

So this is where we begin – Islam as it is. This is Islam at the point of existentialisation.

Let us now investigate the means to understand if these definitions agree with Islam as it was meant to be.

As we can see from the world, the variations in thinking within the semantic space called Islam are wide. We find variations like fundamentalism, liberalism, conservatism and so on. These variations are then fixed with the adjective ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’ so we get phrases like ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ or ‘Muslim liberals’.

How do we begin to measure the authenticity of these variations and subsequently discover Islam in its pure form, if it exists? How do we know it exists? If it exists, do we need to seek it?

I believe the need to authenticate exists because Muslim societies are now at a low point of existence, suffering from various social diseases. They are far from essentialisation. Is this caused by Islam itself or by some other factors? Before we answer that, we must ask: What is Islam ?

To answer this, we must use the source of Islam, The Quran.

The Quran is considered to be the personal communique to Mohamed ibn Abdullah. Muslims treat it with extreme reverence, reading it and have a long tradition of scholarship arising from its study. It is then logical to me that the Quran be my starting point.

What does the Quran itself say about its position?

The month of Ramadhan is which in is the descent of Al-Quran, a guidance to humankind, a clarification of the Guidance and the criteria…
(chapter 2, verse 185)

So the Quran labels itself as a guidance to humankind, a clarification of the guidance and a criteria. There is therefore no ambiguity regarding its position among the Muslims. We can then seek authenticity of Islam by taking it back to the Quran.

Our end point therefore would be paradoxically at the point of our origin, the Quran. The Quran once engaged on its own terms would yield a world-view which is Islam in its pure form.

The Quran defines its system as that which will bring peace and justice for all humankind and enable them to live in metaphorical gardens on the earth. These gardens symbolise the felicity of God’s favour and allows those in it to live lives of safety, security and beauty. Muslims are those who precipitate and facilitate this state for the world.

This is what we seek. This is our end point. This is our essentialisation.