Since certain individuals on this forum, in their zeal to uncover the abuses of our brethren back home, are engaging in a ‘cut and paste’ campaign like no other, I thought it would be interesting to define those targeted in these posts - aptly labeled ‘fundamentalists’.
This word, as I understand it, initially was coined to describe the actions of Christians, in particular Protestants. Websters 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defines fundamentalism as, “a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.” It is now synonymous with Muslims and almost solely relegated to descriptions of Islam. I like the description of ‘fundamentalism’ provided by Sahgal and Yuval-Davis, it reads like this:
- "[P]olitical movements which have a religious imperative and seek in various ways, in widely differing circumstances, to harness modern state and media powers to the service of their gospel. This gospel is presented as the only valid form of religion. It can rely heavily on sacred religious texts, but it can also be more experiential and linked to specific charismatic leadership. Fundamentalism can align itself with different polititical trends in different countries and manifest itself in many forms. It can appear as a form of orthodoxy - a maintenance of ‘traditional values’ - or as a revivalist radical phenomenon, dismissing impure an corrupt forms of religion to “return to original sources.” *
Fundamentalism is not relegated to Islam specifically. There exist Christian fundamentalists (in the US various cults practicing a fundamentalist brand of Christianity), Jewish fundamentalists (in Israel, orthodox Jews supporting the absoulute and complete removal of Arabs) and other strange cults, not aligned with any particular church.
Now to the question of Islam and fundamentalism. Is it just to label Islamic movements fundamentalist or is there a better (less offensive) term? John Esposito, thinks there is, he writes:
- “I regard fundamentalism as too laden with Christian presuppositions and western stereotypes, as well as implying a monolithic threat that does not exist; more fitting general terms are ‘Islamic revivalism’ or ‘Islamic activism’, which are less value laden and have roots within the Islamic tradition. Islam possesses a long tradition of revival (tajdid) and reform (islah) whith notions of political and social activism dating from the early Islamic centuries to the present day. Thus I prefer to speak of Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism rather than of Islamic fundamentalism.” *
Ok, so perhaps Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ is not the best term. Thrown around by the media and those attempting to undermine the efforts of legitimate movements, it does become a powerful weapon. Strong enough to alter public opinion on matters. People don’t like ‘fundamentalists’ - by labelling your enemy a ‘fundamentalists’, your in a better position. Revivalist and Activist sounds a bit to ‘kosher’.
Supposing that Islamic revivalism is a threat (in particular in its most zealous forms), what solutions can we offer to counter this threat?
- Our cut and paste friend has offered one solution - increasing awareness. Now I would personally argue that his method of raising awareness is questionable. Personally I find it offensive, as do others I’m sure. When offered as a solution alone, ‘awareness’ does little. Increasing awareness is only the first step. Those sitting in their ivory towers (many living comfortably in the west), screaming human rights abuses - offer little in terms of remedies to those they purport to be helping. Our information based preventive actions are neither enough or effective. Actually, they often undermine legitimate efforts at the grassroots (i.e. Afghanistan’s required development assistance - food, medicine, etc. - came in at a quarter of that which was expected and required, last year).
I don’t feel like commenting on the others, but I hope some of you can offer your thoughts on all five and add more if you like.
2)International sanctions - do these work?
3)Dealing with the powerbrokers - weather they be ‘revivalist’ parties or secularists.
4)Laissez-faire - leave them be and ignore them.
5)Bomb them into submission and institute our own ‘democratic’ or ‘benevolent dictator’.
Those are five possiblities I can think of. I’d be interested in seeing what others think. Personally, I don’t see a threat. The reason for the West’s obsession with the Muslim world, in my opinion, is not to safe guard the rights of minorities or those threatened by ruling regimes, but rather to safe guard and secure its own interests, weather it be political or economic. For example, in Afghanistan, pipelines being laid down lead to an estimated two trillion dollars worth of oil, US company UNOCAL had the rights to that oil, the US government hence instituted policy option number (4) laissez faire, leaving the Taliban be, looking the other way (some say they indirectly provided support). UNOCAL actually signed agreements with Taliban commanders to secure its pipeline. Thats one example of many.
We should try to look at these issues holistically and try not to get caught up in blaming everything on religion or looking to religion as a solution to all of our problems. Such a narrow view will only lead to failure.
Achtung 
“American policy makers, like the media, have too often proved surprisingly myopic, viewing the Muslim world and Islamic movements as a monolith and seeing them solely in terms of extremism and terrorism.” (John Esposito)