|
(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.
|