As the owner of the Political Islam List I would like to welcome subscribers to what I hope will be an excellent forum for the scholarly discussion of political Islam in all of its many facets.
To get the ball rolling I wonder what the concensus opinion is regarding the term fundamentalism. I have been chastised by others when I have used the term because as they point out the term is primarily defined in the context of Protestant Christian religions. Yet the same people are at a loss for a term to describe the phenomenon.
John Esposito uses political Islam (as I have named this list); Youssef Choueiri uses revivalism, reformism, and radicalism for three separate types of fundamentalism; Ali Dessouki and others use Islamic Resurgence; Maxime Rodinson uses Islam Resurgent, this list could continue perhaps endlessly.
What is the consensus opinion of list members? Is fundamentalism a bad term, and if so, why?
Joseph W. Roberts | Department of Political Science
Phone: (801) 581 - 4262
| University of Utah
Fax: (801) 581 - 6183 | 252 Orson Spencer
Hall
E-Mail: Joseph.Roberts@m.cc.utah.edu | Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Before responding to the question about fundamentalism, I would first like to thank Joseph Roberts for creating this list. I am encouraged by the theme of the initial discussion and I hope that Political-Islam indeed develops into an interesting and educational forum.
J. Roberts:
...I wonder what the concensus opinion is regarding the term fundamentalism.
B. Daunch:
I suppose that it depends upon the context in which the term is used. If the popular media uses the term fundamentalist, they typically use it as a blanket term to cover anyone and everyone that appears to be of some radical orientation or violently conservative position. I suppose this is at the root of some of the chastisement you mention.
My own working (and ever-evolving) definition of fundamentalist involves one who actively attempts to return a faith or philosophy (locally/personally or globally) to a position in which the foundational ideas and laws are observed and practised. It also involves one who is dissatisfied with the historical evolution and future direction of said faith or philosophy. When used in this context, fundamentalism is an acceptable and appropriate term.
Now, append it to the term islamic -- and the resulting phrase has a myriad of meanings as well (some very insulting to many).
As I mentioned above, this definition is always in the working stage, and I would be interested in hearing critiques and criticisms as well as other peoples personal definitions. I am also curious to hear other comments on the merits of such a term.
Bill Daunch
wad@atlas.chemistry.uakron.edu
S. Muhlberger:
If you apply Bill's definition of fundamentalism to Islam, it would appear that the "fundamentals" would be the Quran and the hadith, and fundamentalism would be an insistence on the relevance of those texts for today's society. It would also mean a rejection of re-interpretation of the texts after a certain point: the closing of the gate of ijtihad.
But are the gates closed and when were they closed...?
B. Daunch:
This is a correct application of my definition. I suspect that the part about interpretation only applies to the Hadith in this case. I remember many months ago on the RELIGION list, someone brought up the topic of whether or not the Qu'ran undergoes the same kind of cyclical interpretation that has often been endured by other religious texts. I do not remember who responded, but I do remember the mention of strict adherence to the letter of the book because this is the word of God and cannot nor should not be interpreted. However when it comes to the Hadith (except for the strong hadith), the sky's the limit.
Again, is this just the perception of one Islamic sect, or is this pretty much agreed upon by all muslims?
Bill Daunch
wad@atlas.chemistry.uakron.edu>
B. Daunch:
>I suppose that it depends upon the context in which the term is used. If the popular media uses the term fundamentalist, they typically use it as a blanket term to cover anyone and everyone that appears to be of some radical orientation or violently conservative position. I suppose this is at the root of some of the chastisement you mention.
>My own working (and ever-evolving) definition of fundamentalist involves one who actively attempts to return a faith or philosophy (locally/personally or globally) to a position in which the foundational ideas and laws are observed and practised. It also involves one who is
The problem is that if this definition is used than we will find that many people described as "fundamentalists" are very far from the actual fundamentals of the religion that they claim to espouce.
For example, the North American Christian fundamentalists' version of Christianity is not the same as what can be found in the New Testament.
Perhaps a better definition would be "who actively attempt to return a faith or philosophy to a position in which the foundational ideas and laws, AS THEY PERCEIVE THEM, are practiced". However, if we adopt this definition we may find that this definition applies to too many people.
For example, there are Muslims who believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is fully in accord with the basic principles of Islam. There are those who believe that it is not. It would be senseless, however, to apply the same label to both groups - even if both groups think that they are promoting "fundamentals" of Islam.
(BTW, any thoughts on compatibility of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Islam?)
Michael Voytinsky
michaelv@globalx.net
Hello everyone !
Just to add my two pesos worth on the issue ...
There is a fascinating project called the Fundamentalism Project run by the AAAS. I am sure most people on this list are aware of it. At the introduction to their first volume Fundamentalisms Observed they discuss at length whether or not Fundamentalism is an accurate descriptot of the many movements and ideologies they describe. Their conclusion is that whereas there are obvious problems with the word, it will have to do.
My personal perspective on the use of the term relates to whether we are trying to describe a phenomenon or simply to label one. In other words, when we look at the events in the ME and attach Fundamentalism to the actions of Shi'i Iran, Hamas, Hezbullah, Muslim Brotherhood ...etc. are we lumping these movements/ideologies together and saying that since they are all fundamentalist movmts then they therefore share some characteristicss and can therefore be dealt with in a similar vein ?
Or are we simply trying to attach a label for the purposes of discussion ?
In the former case, I think fundamentalism is a poor descriptor, mainly because it is a borrowed term. (So is political islam, by the way).
If we are talking about Islam, then we should recognize that insomuch as a person is an active Muslim ie prays, he or she is committed to the fundamentals of the religion. In other words, the question of the Qur'an being the literal Word of God has never been an issue for the common Muslim. Whether the Qur'an should be taken literally was never also an issue for the common Muslim - it was left to the "fuqaha" and the "mufassireen". Ditto for hadith.
On a last note, there is a problem with the use of the term political islam. The problem is that non-political islam is a very recent phenomenon ie only from about 1924 onwards, and that even arguably so. With the abolition of the Ottoman Khilafa, the first notion of a secular Muslim country came into being. Even then, Ataturk made it clear that Turkey is to become secular, not Muslim. There wasn't a mere relegation of Islam to the individual, it was completely abolished.
In other Muslim countries, there was always an emphasis on Islam in the political sense. Thus King Farouk of Egypt was somtimes styled Al-Farouk (after the second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab). Today, King Hassan of Moroco is styled Ameerul-Mu'mineen (The Commander of the Faithful - a title for the caliph). Sadat was "The Believing President"; King Fahd is the "Guardian of the Holy Shrines"; Saddam Hussein declared Jihad; Gamal Abdel-Nasser is buried in a mosque ...etc.
Of course, insomuch as the "fundamentalists" are concerned, these are blatant cases of Islam being used as a tool. In their own mind they wish to establish real political and socioeconomic systems based on islamic grounds.
Sindebad <haddara@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
The library at my university is pretty skimpy in spots. One thing it lacks is any recent (1990s) material on exactly how the Islamic Revolution in Iran has worked out. I am sure there is plenty of opinion out there. Are there some judicious scholarly but not dusty (how's that for a modest set of qualifiers) books on the subject that I can order for the library and read myself?
Steve Muhlberger
Nipissing University
North Bay, Ontario
Re Bill Daunsch's comments.
If you apply Bill's definition of fundamentalism to Islam, it would appear that the "fundamentals" would be the Quran and the hadith, and fundamentalism would be an insistence on the relevance of those texts for today's society. It would also mean a rejection of re-interpretation of the texts after a certain point: the closing of the gate of ijtihad. But are the gates closed and when were they closed?
Can there be an Islamic fundamentalism in which the gates are not closed? A Shiite fundamentalism, in which an agreed upon modern Imam's rulings constitute an important part of those fundamentals?
Steve Muhlberger
Nipissing
University
<STEVEM@EINSTEIN.UNIPISSING.CA>
In the for what its worth category, we here in the Department of Defense have increasingly turned away from the term Islamic fundamentalism to describe the political phenomenon we are witnessing in the region. In its place we are more prone to use the term Islamic radicalism, Islamic extremism or political Islam. This trend has also been migrating to the Department of State, CIA, DIA, and other Washington area agencies.
This position has evolved because we do not believe the term fundamentalism is accurate to describe the political phenomenon at issue and tends to be used in a pejorative manner against Islam as a whole. Definitions such as Bill Daunch's and Michael Voytinsky's imply that fundamentalism relates to a return of "a faith or philosophy to a position in which the foundational ideas and laws . . . are practiced." While this may be true in some cases it is not true in all. I'm not arguing against their definition of fundamentalism, but against its value in describing the political phenomenon in question. We believe there are schools in Islam such as the Wahabis and some Shi'ite sects who never departed from the literal interpretation and practice of the Koran. They qualify for the descriptor fundamentalist much as do some fundamentalist evangelical Christian sects. But, the Wahabis do not carry the same political baggage that the Muslim Brotherhood or the Gamiyat Islamiya do and we have come to believe that it would thus be inappropriate to use the same descriptor.
We also have concerns as Michael Voytinsky states that "we will find that many people described as "fundamentalists" are very far from the actual fundamentals of the religion that they claim to espouse." Our concern is that in a political context, these groups are using Islam as a political tool rather than espousing a return to fundamentalist practice of Islam. As such, Islam has proven to be a powerful political tool.
Steve Gotowicki
STEVEHG@delphi.com
Bill Daunch -
>Perhaps a better definition would be "who actively attempt to return a faith or philosophy to a position in which the foundational ideas and laws, AS THEY PERCEIVE THEM, are practiced". However, if we adopt this definition we may find that this definition applies to too many people.
>B. Daunch:
>Welcome Michael, and thanks for the quick response. Your point is well taken. You have certainly pin-pointed the transient nature of the term fundamentalism, and it this very nature which I find to be perplexing.
There is another attribute of people commonly referred to as "fundamentalists" and that is a remarkable intolerance and inability to even contemplate the viewpoints of others'. However, there is nothing in the "fundamentals" of Islam (or Christianity) that requires "fundamentalism".
>It seems that one person's fundamentalist is another person's radical revisionist. From this point of view, my definition fails miserably.
Well, different brands of "fundamentalists" are quite capable of seriously disliking or even hating each other.
A confusion arises when an assumption is made that "fundamentalists" have something to do with the "fundamentals" of a religion - understandable given the same root of the two words. Perhaps some other term is neccesary - a short form for "intolerant and frequently violent individuals motivated by their own notions of their religion's fundamentals".
>However, within the context of ones own perception of what are truly fundamental tenets, my original definition becomes somewhat useful.
It is useful only when there is some sort of agreement on what it means. This general agreement tends to disappear when the search for definition starts - since the term "fundamentalist" carries many images and connotations but no clear meaning.
>Regarding your mention of the UDHR and Islam, do you know which principles are irreconcilable? I would be curious to know where the two bodies diverge (I'm assuming it's not everything).
I am not sure if the Sharia and the UDHR are completely irreconciliable - certainly there are Muslims who think that they are. However, there appear to be some disagreements:
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.... etc.
However, according to Dr. Abdur Rahman I. Doi in his book "Shariah: The Islamic Law" (which many Muslims seem to recommend highly as a good intro to the Sharia), "The punishment by death in the case of apostacy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence".
Dr. Doi supports his statement by a quote from al-Bukhari hadith "Whosoever changes his religion from Islam to anything else, bring end to his life."
Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
However, according to the Sharia, a Muslim man may only marry a woman who is from "the people of the Book". A Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
But according to Article 16, a person of any religion persuation whatsoever can marry anyone of any religion persuation whatsoever.
Those are the two that I can think of at the moment. There are probably some others.
Michael Voytinsky
michaelv@globalx.net
I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I've seen and read, how about this: fundamentalist - one who attempts to grant governemntal powers to a religious or philosophical sect, often accomplished by the use of violence, that is, a theocracy installed by acts of violence perpetrated upon its opposition.
Switch this individual to a concept ("fundamentalism") and tack on Islamic, that is believing in and espousing the religion of Islam, and there you have it (maybe).
Sam Whitley <swhitley@sun.cis.smu.edu>
Greetings--
A dozen-odd efforts to define "fundamentalism"--Islamic fundamentalism--have passed by now, with some progress.
Rather than advance yet another thesis, I'll suggest an experiment: close your eyes for a minute or so and review the images of "Islamic fundamentalism" that come to mind.
[Really.]
Chances are good that some of you thought back to the astonishing images of the Iranian Revolution (e.g., the angry mobs surrounding the US embassy), toss in an ayatollah or two, perhaps a few hijackings, certainly some scenes of Palestinian radicals (honestly now: did you distinguish between the PLO and Hamas, and discount the former?), maybe some photographs of more recent battles in Afghanistan or some scenes of violence in India and/or Pakistan...
Powerful images to be sure, but these moments and movements have little in common in an integral way: not language or culture; some are urban, some rural; some throw stones, others use plastic explosives; some are doggedly battling for territorial gains, other for international media spectacle; some, swept up in revolutionary zeal, are storming the gates of the infidels, whereas others are systematiccaly assaulting the vestiges of NLF-era governments.
The point of my "thought experiment" was simple--to stress the extent to which media imagery has served to advance a wildly simplistic notion of a historical development that's just as multifaceted as any that consumes our own immediate lives. Perhaps I'm belaboring the obvious, but from the remarks thus far I don't think so: imagine a mailing list in which various Maoist intelligentsia set out to hammer out a functional definition of "running dogs" or somesuch. From one perspective, "running dogs" do exist, just as "Islamic radicals/fundamentalists" do from another. But our own desire to develop functionally descriptive categories has conspired with both an accumulation of pan-Islamic and pan-Arabic rhetoric and a, yes, our cultural "Orientalist" tendencies to produce something that is, in large part, a fiction. And don't take my word for it: we may well see, for example, whether various Arabic countries will be any more hospitable to Palestinian exiles in the future than they were in the past. And, from an explicitly geoploitical perspective, one need only try to summarize the tangled relations between Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia to grasp how convoluted Islamic ideals become in practice.
Were we to review an analogous kind of imagery from the west and lump disparate scenes together so sloppily, we might well find ourselves trying to develop a definition that would subsume the IRA and American antiabortion demonstrators (under the rubric of "Catholicism"); we would likely confuse the student protests of the sixties with the demonstrations of the "white backlash" a few years later...
Forgive me my naivete, but I was rather surprised to see one commentator from the Defense Department employing a category that, in a very subtle way, seemed to me far more adequate than the more "academic" approaches advanced thus far: "Islamic radicalism." Where "fundamentalism" implies an almost centripetal tendency toward a "center," a core or basis, "radicalism" is more centrifugal in its connotations, for it points not to a center but to the periphery--and the periphery has much more room for diversity.
I've gone on a bit, and I hope you'll forgive me my indulgence. A late-breaking contribution from Mark Azar points out something I had wanted to suggest in closing: rather than accept the claim that "Islamic fundamentalism" is primarily concerned with "good old-time religion," why not examine what it rejects--*modernism*.
In a compex and contradictory way, of course: Much as Satmar Hasidim dress in 19th-century garb but are happy to wear beepers, and much as the Khmer Rouge sought to eradicate western influence with machine guns, the various movements that we subsume under the name "Isl...ism" would like to pick and choose from modernity's fruits in a convenient way--but that's nothing new.
Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TedByfield 320W75#4cNYC10023 212.787.2442fax.3597
tbyfield@popserver.panix.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Roberts has opened an interesting question.
I believe the term "fundamentalism" to be a quite accurate description of the phenomenon among -- at least -- Sunni Muslims. I do not think of Protestant fundamentalism when I use the term. Muslim revivalists, radicals, etc. seek a return to the "fundamentals" of Islam -- the Qur'an and the Sunna. They support the opening of the gates of ijtihad (independent reasoning based on the fundamentals), and reject taqlid (relying solely on tradition). Through going back to the fundamentals and using independent reasoning, they seek to apply Islam to the problems of the day -- "Islam is the solution."
Among those who share this basic belief, some are more radical and politically active than others. So I would suggest that we call most of them Islamic fundamentalists, and distinguish the more radical or violent ones by terming them "radical Islamic fundamentalists."
I also reject the notion raised by some that the term fundamentalist is "Orientalist" or somehow culturally insensitive. Muslim fundamentalists often use the term themselves -- usuliyyah, so at least some of them feel that the shoe fits.
Josh
==============================================
Joshua Teitelbaum Tel: [972]
3-640-9991
Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and Fax: [972]
3-641-5802
African Studies E-mail:teitelba@ccsg.tau.ac.il
Tel Aviv
University
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978
Israel
==============================================================
I submit to the political-islam list subscribers my own attempt to define the contemporary phenomenon we are trying to seize. Just notice the use of the term "islamism" follows the main academic trend in the French-speaking world. Sorry to submit it in French, but it is taken directly from a course I am giving here.
J'emploie ` dessein le terme d'islamisme, et non pas integrisme, fondamentalisme, voire terrorisme islamique ou autres. Quelques petites definitions permettront de clarifier la situation conceptuelle, ce qui est une condition prealable a toute apprehension equilibree du phenomene. Definition : L'islamisme est une ideologie politico-religieuse visant ` resoudre les problemes sociaux et politiques de notre epoque au moyen de la religion dont il pritend restaurer l'integralite des preceptes -> difinissable positivement comme "l'affirmation de la nicessiti d'un retour aux preceptes islamiques de comportement et d'organisation qui contiendraient en eux-memes la solution de tous les problemes contemporains"
-> definissable negativement comme le rejet de la domination materielle et morale de l'Occident.
a distinguer de fondamentalisme : le fondamentalisme doit etre pris au sens precis d'un retour absolu ` l'Ecriture comme seul fondement de toute critique et de toute renovation. En ce sens, est fondamentaliste tout musulman qui veut revenir au seul Coran
a distinguer d'integrisme : l'integrisme est refus des adaptations de l'Eglise et des croyants en matihre liturgique, pastorale, sociale et politique. Est donc intigriste celui qui refuserait, par exemple, l'introduction de haut-parleur et de bande magnetique automatique avec une horloge electronique pour remplacer le mu'azzin ` l'heure de l'appel de la priere
a distinguer de khomeinisme : des rapprochements peuvent etre operes mais il existe aussi de nombreuses differences (essentiellement l'existence d'un clerge, phenomene tout ` fait specifique du shi'isme iranien)
Regards,
Baudouin
Baudouin DUPRET
Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches sur le Monde Arabe
Contemporain (CERMAC)
3 place Montesquieu - 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve - BELGIUM
tel. (+32) 10 - 47 33 50
fax (+32) 10 - 47 28 05
tel. and fax (home)
: (+32) 2 - 374 11 49
sdxbd@iddz1ux.iddz.ucl.ac.be
Responsible for these Web pages is Knut S. Vikør. Archived 2.5.95