(Part 1 of 7) INTRODUCTION TO RELIGIOUS
FUNDAMENTALISMS
“Religious
fundamentalism fits uncomfortably into this world,” declares one
scholar.[1]
To fundamentalists, notes another scholar, “religious enemies are
important.”[2]
The twentieth century witnessed the maturing and globalization of
the modern Western world. The century, characterized by
increasing secularization, large corporations, growing wealth and
consumerism, technological progress, military might, and global
communications, threatened “traditional”[3]
religious views both within and without the Western world.
Religious individuals and faith groups responded to and interacted
with modernity in a variety of ways, ranging from integration to
resistance. During the course of the twentieth century,
religious groups and individuals who clung to strict orthodoxy and
whose response to modernity was centered in militant resistance
became known as “fundamentalists.”
Religious fundamentalists in general have much in common in terms of
worldviews. In short, all fundamentalists view modernity as
the enemy, that is, the representation of evil. First and
foremost, modern Western thought is the embodiment of a secularized
and pluralistic mindset, resulting in an intellectual challenge to
traditional religious constructs of a God-centered universe.
For all fundamentalists, modernity poses a profound moral crisis of
faith, culture and society. Some scholars point to Islamic
fundamentalism, in particular, as a revolt of bewildered young
people caught between traditional values and complex modern
choices.[4]
Others note that whereas fundamentalism per se is a reaction to the
failures of modernization, the formation of fundamentalist movements
has primarily been in response to the failure of political leaders
(both religious and political) in dealing with the failures of
modernization.[5]
Secondly, modernity as
expressed in society and government is understood to be in active
opposition to traditional religious values and structures, thus
necessitating a defensive response for the protection of traditional
values and structures within an increasingly secular culture.
The defense is based on the concept of “enclave,” that is, the
preservation of the pure faith by harboring it within the protective
walls of the true faith community. The enclave, representing
God, holds the evil world at bay intellectually and socially.[6]
Finally, a defensive
response is viewed by fundamentalists as only a partial
response. Ultimately, the “world” must be conquered (or
transformed) by true believers (or by God Himself) and forced to
adhere to the one pure faith.[7]
Before proceeding further, a brief discussion of the actual
definition of the term “fundamentalist” is in order. Although
characterized by rigid religious beliefs and militant resistance to
modern world views, “fundamentalist” is a word which is difficult to
precisely define. For example, although all religious
fundamentalists are conservatives, not all religious conservatives
are fundamentalists. One distinguishing characteristic of
religious fundamentalists as opposed to religious conservatives is
the fundamentalist’s intolerance of opposing worldviews.
In
addition, although some religious conservatives may join
fundamentalists in adhering to an inerrant or perfect text (referred
to as the “Word of God”), the reactionary (or militant) manner in
which fundamentalists utilize their particular interpretation of the
“Word of God” (both within their larger faith group and in relation
to society at large) typically sets them apart. Some scholars
of religious fundamentalisms oftentimes distinguish between
“scriptural” fundamentalism and “political” fundamentalism,
particularly in terms of Islamic fundamentalisms. Most
scholars of Muslim history, however, reserve the term
“fundamentalist” to refer to political movements which seek to
establish Islamic law at the state level. Islamic movements
which are scripturally strict but avoid politics are viewed as
“revivalist” movements.[8]
Accordingly, for the
purposes of this paper, “fundamentalism” (as applied to Islam) will
be reserved for the political expression of the Islamic faith which
seeks to impose Islamic law upon the state. “Revivalist” will
refer to Islamic movements which adhere to a strict interpretation
of the Quran, but which are not engaged in politics.
Historically, religious fundamentalisms as a whole did not emerge
from a vacuum. Political, cultural and intellectual pressures
in the late nineteenth century created a foundation upon which
fundamentalisms would build and develop increasingly organized
responses to the pervasive secularization of the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries. A brief survey of the rise of
Islamic fundamentalism will allow us to place the movement within
the larger context of Muslim history.
[1]
John H. Garvey, “Introduction: Fundamentalism and Politics,” in
Fundamentalisms and the State, The Fundamentalism Project,
Volume 3, eds. Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 15.
[2]
David C. Rapoport, “Comparing Militant Fundamentalist Movements and
Groups,” in Fundamentalisms and the State, The Fundamentalism
Project, Volume 3, eds. Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 431.
[3]
“Traditional” religious views herein refer to widely understood
pre-twentieth century theological constructs which placed God at the
center of the universe. Following in the wake of the
Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, the nineteenth witnessed
scientific advances in the scholarly world. Disputing the
traditional worldview of God as the center of the universe, modern
science instead placed humanity at the center of existence. By
the 20th century, this humanity-centered worldview was
emerging from the realm of academia and rapidly becoming integrated
into everyday life.
[4]
Valerie J. Hoffman, “Muslim Fundamentalists: Psychosocial Profiles,”
in Fundamentalisms Comprehended, The Fundamentalism Project,
Volume 5, eds. Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 209-225. Remy
Leveau, “Youth Culture and Islamism in the Middle East,” The
Islamist Dilemma: The Political Role in the Contemporary Arab
World, ed. Laura Guazzone (Berkshire, UK: Ithaca Press,
1995).
[5]
James Piscatori, “Accounting for Islamic Fundamentalisms,” in
Accounting for Fundamentalisms, The Fundamentalism Project,
Volume 4, eds. Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 361.
[6]
Emmanuel Sivan, “The Enclave Culture,” in Fundamentalisms
Comprehended, The Fundamentalism Project, Volume 5, eds. Martin
Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1995), 11-68.
[7]
See Gabriel A. Almond, Emmanuel Sivan, and R. Scott Appleby,
“Explaining Fundamentalisms,” in Fundamentalisms
Comprehended, The Fundamentalism Project, Volume 5, eds. Martin
Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1995), 425-429. Almond, Sivan and Appleby
divide fundamentalists into four categories in terms of relating to
the “world”: the “world conqueror,” “world transformer,”
“world creator” and “world renouncer” (426). “Conquerors” take
it upon themselves to eliminate the enemy (the world).
“Transformers” and “Creators” actively fight the world but rely more
heavily on the work of God in eschatological time.
“Renouncers” (who are few in number) are primarily focused on inward
purity. Other scholars would contend that Almond, Sivan and
Appleby’s “Renouncers,” by not actually opposing the modern world
order, are not true fundamentalists.
[8]
In terms of Islamic fundamentalism, see Said Amir Arjomand, “Unity
and Diversity in Islamic Fundamentalism, in Fundamentalisms
Comprehended, The Fundamentalism Project, Volume 5, eds. Martin
Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1995), 179-198. The comparison / contrast
between “scriptural” and “political” fundamentalism is largely a
construct utilized by scholars of fundamentalist movements,
particularly in reference to the Islamic fundamentalism.
Traditional scholars of Muslim history typically speak of
pre-twentieth century strict Islamist movements (based on strict
interpretations of the Quran and the hadith) as “revival” or
“revivalist” movements, whereas the term “fundamentalism” (which
many Muslims reject forthright) is reserved for Islamic political
movements devoted to implementing strict Islamic law on the state
level. In contrast, scholars of Christian fundamentalist
movements typically apply the term “fundamentalist” to Christians
who insist that the final authority in all matters of existence is
the “inerrant” Bible. Unlike Islamic fundamentalists,
Christian fundamentalists typically do not overtly seek the
establishment of a theocratic government.
|