Islamic Fundamentalism,
Fact, Fib or Fiction
By
Anwaar Hussain
SUICIDE
ATTACKS have been on the rise around the world for the last about
two decades. Since many such attacks, including those of 9/11,
have been committed by Muslims, it was conveniently obvious that
Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘militancy’
are the central causes. Another expedient conclusion was that
these ‘fundamentalists’ abhor Christianity in general
and Western civilization, or it’s so called way of life,
in particular.
Concurrently,
as if on a cue, the chant of the terms ‘Islamic fundamentalism’
and ‘terrorism’ by the Western media, the policy makers
and many interested parties globally has been taken up at once.
This thoughtless over use of these terms going in tandem with
the current Western onslaught on Islam, therefore, necessitates
a serious inquiry. What does ‘fundamentalism’ mean
and why is it being used in the context of Islam by the Western
policy makers and their mouth pieces?
As
‘terrorists’ are invariably labeled as ‘Islamic
fundamentalists’, let us focus on the word ‘fundamentalism’.
Ironically, the term ‘fundamentalism’ is not even
Islamic in origin. It originated in a series of pamphlets published
between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony
to the Truth." These booklets were written by leading evangelical
churchmen. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the
loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America
during the early years of the twentieth century.
That fundamentalism is basically
a Christian concept and was never really dead since it initially
evolved is witnessed by the fact of recent spectacular resurgence
of ‘neo-fundamentalists’ in the power corridors of
the United States. The President of United States refers to the
divine and invokes the name of God more often than any other incumbent
Western head of state.
If
its designs are not sinister, the West must bear two things in
mind before branding any religion as ‘militant’ and
its followers as ‘fundamentalists’. First….a
little lesson in history. What goes around comes around. When
religion is mixed with politics for ulterior motives, a dangerous
brew is the end concoction. If the Bin Ladens of today offer Paradise
to the fresh recruits who die in a holy cause, Pope Urban II did
exactly the same when enlisting soldiers for a crusade to "tear
that land from the wicked race" in AD 1095.
Slaughtering
an infidel was advertised as a virtuous act ensuring profit and
prestige, both here and in the hereafter, for those joining the
Pope's army. For this Christian ‘Jihad’, the papal
promise was complete "atonement" from all sins and a
guaranteed entry into heaven, not much different than the Bin
Laden promise. The subsequent slaughter of women, children, Jews
and Muslims has been described by various historians as having
caused the streets of Jerusalem "to flow in blood up to the
bridal reins".
Second…every subject has certain
fundamentals. Be it religion, business, science, or any other
issue, the underlying fundamentals are necessary to be learned
and practiced. All these subjects are based on certain distinguishing
features. Such features may alternatively be called fundamentals
of these subjects. Physics, for example, will be impossible to
grasp without first tackling its fundamentals of Laws of Motion,
theories of relativity and atomic particles.
Likewise, all religions, as Islam,
have certain fundamentals without following which one cannot claim
to be a devotee of that religion. Logically then, fundamentalism
would mean an approach, an attempt or a movement that holds onto
or tries to uphold these fundamentals. Muslims, like followers
of all other religions, believe in these as revered features and
endeavor to conform to these as best as they can…nothing
more, nothing less and nothing extraordinary.
Arguably though, a more general and
current reason, for this negative approach toward Islam is Western
secularism. Paradoxically, this modern secularism has its own
fundamentals. However, unlike the Christian world or its present
secular expression, there has never been a group or a sect in
the Muslim world which called itself ‘fundamentalist’.
It is not too difficult to argue that this heightened concern
in the West about the Muslim world suitably coincided with the
demise in the mid 80's of the Soviet Union. For almost fifty years
in the last century the socialist giant remained a favorite punching
bag for the Western powers. These very ‘fundamentalists’
of today were nurtured by the West and used as pawns for an accelerated
downfall of the Soviet empire. The West is crying wolf now when
the chickens have come home to roost. Almost the entire so called
Muslim fundamentalist hot spots e.g. Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine
etc. existed then as now. None were then thought worthy of the
scorn that comes their way now from the West.
The
reason is simple. With the socialist apparition out of the way,
it was obvious that the Western world must have another demon
to exorcise. If ‘Muslim fundamentalism’ had not been
conjured soon enough, another evil empire would have had to be
resurrected. After all a huge military muscle was built up for
the earlier adventure that could not be allowed to lie idle and
wither away for want of exercise. Moreover, power does not operate
in a vacuum and has to have a medium to exert itself on or risk
fading away.
And
if in the process some genuine Muslim struggles had to be sacrificed
at the altar of expediency, so be it. How else could the deliberate
ignoring of the Muslims’ genocide in Kashmir, Palestine
and Chechnya, among many, at the hands of the highly trained and
very well equipped Indian, Israeli and Russian armed forces be
justified while East Timor got its independence for a song? Why
else is the plight of these Muslims only whispered about but never
brought to public attention by the leaders of the Western media
and public policy? Why else was democracy and nationhood deemed
good for the goose but not for the gander? Why else were Muslim
despots and dictators of every hue and color cultivated, pampered
and propped by the West?
It
is thus not very difficult to surmise that this deliberate use
of the expression “Islamic fundamentalism” by the
West and their cronies is mischievous, willful and malicious.
It also explains to a great degree the Western tendency, to lump
together acts of extremism, sabotage or fanaticism on the part
of some splinter groups in the Muslim world with movements of
Islamic revival.
That
the attempt is both misleading and counter-productive obviously
does not ruffle their feathers. It is misleading because the origin,
terminology and description of ‘fundamentalism’ are
borrowed primarily from Christian fundamentalist movement of the
American South. It is counterproductive because common Muslims,
or Islam, have nothing to do with the acts of fanaticism carried
out in its name. Bracketing ordinary Muslims with the fanatics
will only swell the ranks of the very people giving sleepless
nights to the West. Moreover, to many Muslims it is increasingly
sounding like a purposeful attempt to create a new rift in the
already fragmented world of Islam.
It must not be overlooked, however,
that the primary responsibility of the misperception of Islam
in the West and among other non-Muslims lies on none other than
the debauched Muslim elites of the past and present. Voluntarily
or otherwise, existing Muslim elites, with a few exceptions, are
entirely dependent on the West for their otherwise untenable claim
to power. Unfortunately, the existing Western and the toady Muslim
leadership acting in concert are dealing a more devastating blow
to Islam’s image than if one of them were to act alone.
One could argue that Christianity
has matured since then and its afore-quoted bloody manifestations
are seen no more. This is a debatable argument at best. Not very
far back the Church was on a rampage in Europe and parts of American
continent. And the present American neo-fundos are straining at
the leashes to paint current global crisis with blood-red strokes
of divine brushes. Given their unparalleled military superiority,
many a neo-con mouths salivate at the mere mention of the word
‘crusade’. Their readiness to mete out ‘infinite
justice’ is as vulgar as it is distasteful.
The
neo-con theory that future 9/11s can be avoided only by an across-the-board
transformation of Muslim societies is overly simplistic. The presumed
connection between suicide attacks and Islam and the subsequent
bogies of ‘fundamentalism’ and 'terrorism' are a transparent
sham and deserve to be treated with the contempt that these merit.
Pursuing this farce is manifestly deceptive and ultimately dangerous.
It may give birth to self serving domestic and foreign policies,
like the Patriot Act and Iraq/Afghanistan invasion, but cannot
stem the danger of suicide attacks.
For
the simple fact that Islam has nothing to do with these acts even
if these were carried out by certain flag carriers of repressed
Muslim peoples drawing attention to their plight. Addressing their
grievances, on the other hand, can go a long way in eliminating
the danger.
If
one were to grant that the West has no ulterior motives in this
offensive, would it be asking too much of it to show some patience
to the youngest of all the great religions of planet earth i.e.
Islam and take a break from the non-stop and bogus branding of
its followers as ‘fundamentalists’?
The
writer is am ex-officer of the Pakistan Air Force EMail: eagleeye@emirates.net.ae
