Question:

You intend to enact Islamic laws under the banner of Islamic revolution,. The West, however, has dubbed you as fundamentalists. According to them, the fundamentalists are non-accommodative, uncivilized and vindictive. What are the underlying factors of the term ‘fundamentalism’ and how far it fits Jama’at-e-Islami, Akhwan-ul-Muslimoon, Afghan mujahideen, the Islamic revolutionary forces in Sudan and Algiers, the Kashmiri Hizb-al-Mujahideen, Palestinian Hammas Movement and those faithful Muslims who oppose some kingdoms in the Arab world and the military dictatorships?

Answer:

The question warrants many answers. We shall briefly submit that among the Western tyrannies concerning the Muslim World, one is that instead of calling us by our own name, they feel pleased to paste us with titles of their own choice. On the one hand they plead for basic human rights, yet they deny us even the right to be addressed by the name we wish. For centuries Islam was called "Muhammadanism". Even today, the use of the terms Islam and Muslim, are avoided. Since quite some time now we have been favoured with a new name - fundamentalism. Literally, there is nothing wrong with it, because a person is fundamentalist if he sticks to the fundamentals of his belief and religion and would not at all compromise on that ground. In this sense, any one who upholds an ideology and principle, can be called ‘fundamentalist’.

Background of the term "Fundamentalism"

Yet, in fact, the term is not that simple, as it carries a certain background. In the two periods of Western history, the term was used for those followers of Christianity who were narrow-minded, anti-development, violent in their views and strictly following a beaten path. During the medieval age, the term was used for a brief period in Europe, but could not get popular. Then towards the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, those Christian Evangelists were named fundamentalists, who believed in the literal interpretation of Bible, who strictly adhered to basic Biblic faiths and believed the virgin birth of Jesus (p.b.u.h.) by Mary (p.b.u.h.) - the chaste and unmarried. They also believed in the ascension and bodily resurgence of Jesus (p.b.u.h.). (Simultaneously), they opposed many a scientific theories on religious grounds. Particularly, they rejected Darwin’s theory of Evolution and did not want it to be taught in the educational institutions. This group surfaced like a movement and extended its influence on a vast area in America. The series of books it published were named "The Fundamentals" - and hence the term fundamentalism derived for the movement.

The movement did not object to be called fundamentalist because in contrast to traditional Christianity, it favoured for itself a specific creed. Then, in the light of this doctrine the movement built its own churches and other institutions, published books and journals, arranged Evangelistic activities and presented its particular view point in the areas of politics, economics, science and culture. Those who opposed them were faced with religious fervour and vehemence. The movement was on top between 1908 and 1936, although its effects are visible and followers exist even today.

This group devised its own theology, and in the light of that worked out the mission’s strategy and approach towards the issues of 20th century civilization. The traditionalist Christians criticized the movement and at last, the term "Fundamentalists" got confined both in America and Europe, for those who out of the mainstream Christianity, were vehemently rebellious to authentic Christian religious thoughts and were inward looking and literalists. In this way, a dimension of opprobrium was added to the term and progressively the media and press transformed it into an open abuse.

Current use of the term "Fundamentalism"

Over the past 20 to 25 years, the American writers are using this term for the Muslims. Particularly, after the Iranian revolution, the American media and politicians have pasted it over the Muslims at large. During the 19th century and rather upto the middle of the 20th century, we do not find the top level orientalists calling the Muslims fundamentalists, but after the revolution in Iran, its usage has gushed forth like a flood. It is a purely Christian cap being forcibly imposed on the Muslims. It has rather been made a way of thinking. The Muslims have, however, rejected with scorn, its usage for them exactly as they did not accept the term "Muhammadanism" for Islam. More recently the movements for Islamic revival are projected, fitted with the term abusively, whereas these movements have their own appropriate names better reflecting their characteristics.

Islamic Movements and Fundamentalism

The Islamic movements do not believe to be fundamentalists in the sense that ‘some’ religious preachings and tenets are basic and that new structuring should be done only on those foundations. In fact, for them the whole of Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) provide the base and source of religion (ad-Deen) and nothing provided in them can be made the target of commission and omission, because their very call is "Enter Islam in toto and do not follow the footprints of Satan" - meaning, that compartmentalizing the life and accepting religious directives in part, is not permissible. How then the Western term of "fundamentalism" could be applied to them?

Back to the central point of our discussion, we would say that the Islmic movements today are in fact, working in the field as active agents of change, development and human welfare. The West, America and their local admirers, on their part, are projecting these movements in just the opposite shape, and which they have entitled "anti-progress, mindless traditionalist and fundamentalist". All these characteristics which make an admixture of the Western meaning of "fundamentalism", are erroneously attributed to Islamic movements. We believe it is simply unjustified and totally wrong and for this we should not be apologetic and defensive at all. If fundamentalism means that one accepts Islam as the main (and only) source of guidance, and that keeping in view the present day demands and without reservations, he puts his humble share in establishing a system according to the letter and spirit of that guidance, then he should be proud of that. You may then call him fundamentalist, or Islamist, or traditionalist or whatever, would not hurt him at all. But here we are facing an altogether different situation. A totally wrong concept coated with an abusive terminology is presented in an aversive manner and unjustly imposed on the Islamic movements. The approach followed is that first dub something with a bad name and then hang it.

We desire that the Islamic message of faith and peace is accepted and made the core of all matters. On the other hand the West insists that, alright use the title Islam if you so wish, yet take the matter and spirit from the West. We cannot submit to this dictation in any sphere of life. The West also demands that the dictatorships, the so-called democracies and kingdoms under its protection in the Muslim World, should be accepted as carrying the "Divine" sanction. Let it be clear that we are not ready for this either. To our principle position, however, the West has come forward with a new version of crusadic animosity and turned "fundamentalism" into an abuse for the Muslims.