Ayesha Naseem, UK
Many people think they understand the term fundamentalism; however, when asked to define it, they are unable to do so. A century after it was first used, there is still not one agreed universal definition of fundamentalism.
For Malise Ruthven, it is “a religious way of being that manifests itself in a strategy by which beleaguered believers attempt to preserve their distinctive identities as individuals or groups in the face of modernity and secularisation.” (Malise Ruthven, Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction [New York: University of Oxford Press, 2007], pp. 5-6)
David Harrington Watt suggests that fundamentalism has a defining characteristic of resisting modernity, and it tends to “read texts literally, a predilection for getting involved in politics, and a proclivity for militant rhetoric and action.” (David Harrington Watt, “Fundamentalists of the 1920s and 1930s”, in Fundamentalism: Perspectives on a Contested History, eds by Simon A. Wood and David Harrington Watt [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2014], p. 18).
The same concept is much broader for Simon Wood who speaks of fundamentalism as an idea that can be understood in “terms of resistance to modern ‘threats’ or opposition to modern secularism.” (Simon A. Wood, “The Concept of Global Fundamentalism: A Short Critique”, in Fundamentalism: Perspectives on a Contested History, eds by Simon A. Wood and David Harrington Watt [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2014], p. 125)
All three of these definitions give fundamentalism a religious connotation while also associating it with the idea that it resists and confronts modernity. However, despite having similar descriptions, the term still has ambiguities to its applicability and one definitive categorisation of the concept does not do it justice.
Fundamentalism – The term and its origins
The concept of fundamentalism has its origins in Protestant scholarship, and it did not always have negative implications. Broadly, revival and reform movements in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been associated with the idea of fundamentalism because they tend to stress the need to return to the basic roots of the religion and its scripture. For this research piece, the religion of Islam is the focus.
Through a study and analysis of the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, the aim is to explain whether fundamentalism supposedly always carries the risk of inspiring extremism because it is based on the revival of a religion’s teaching. Islam Ahmadiyyat is, of course, also a revival movement, but it is one that actively refutes the widely known view that returning to the original scripture and its teaching incites extremism, oppression, or serves as a resistance to civilisation.
In 1910, two Christian brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart, with a successful oil business in the United States, sponsored a five-year programme for the publication and distribution of free-of-cost pamphlets about Protestant Christianity. The pamphlets were to be distributed to English-speaking Protestant pastors, evangelists, missionaries, theological professors, theological students, and other Protestant Christians etc. The booklets were a collection of essays authored by several Christian writers and were edited by three evangelists: A.C. Dixon, Louis Meyer and Reuben Torrey. Titled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, the pamphlets were a reformatory programme to stop the erosion of Protestant Christianity’s fundamental beliefs. (Ruthven, Fundamentalism, p. 7)
Those fundamental beliefs were the “inerrancy of the Bible; the direct creation of the world, and humanity; the authenticity of miracles; the virgin birth of Jesus, his Crucifixion and bodily resurrection; the substitutionary atonement; and his imminent return to judge and rule over the world.” More than three million copies of the booklets were circulated and were spread and shared on both sides of the Atlantic. For the authors of The Fundamentals, the booklets were a form of reformation for the “sizeable portion of Christendom” who had fallen into “grievous error.” Moreover, the publication of these pamphlets was to remove the doubts and mistrust of those Christians who had any “uneasy or distrustful feeling” regarding the Bible. (Ibid.; Watt, “Fundamentalists of the 1920s and 1930s, p. 19.; James Orr, “Holy Scripture and Modern Negations,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. George M. Marsden [New York: Garland, 1988], pp. 31-45)
Scholars writing on the origins of fundamentalism also agree that the term did not always have negative connotations nor was it a term of abuse when Christians were making efforts to preserve their original teachings. (Ruthven, Fundamentalism, p. 5)
In the case of Islam; however, the same understanding is not demonstrated owing to the representation given to the religion and its followers by politicians, media and even academics. If one were to study the reformist and revival movements of Islam, mostly established in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, almost all argue for a return to the basic teachings of the Holy Quran. Without an awareness of the origins of the concept, and with the constantly changing nature of how it is viewed at present, it may be easy to conclude that fundamentalism is a negative idea that challenges and confronts Western values and modernity. Of course, the cases of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam do not help this misunderstanding and stereotypical view of Muslims in the West.
Reformist movements in Islam
If Christian fundamentalism in the early twentieth century and Islamic fundamentalism share the same definition of what they intend to preserve – that is their original teachings – then it is important to distinguish and explain why the revival movements in Islam became the supposed inspiration for extremism. The reformist movement of Wahhabism in Islam founded in the eighteenth century places a significant emphasis on following the Holy Quran word-for-word. (Carol E. B. Choksy and Jamsheed K. Choksy, “The Saudi Connection: Wahhabism and Global Jihad”, World Affairs, vol. 178, no. 1 [2015], pp. 23- 34.)
The very premise of Wahhabism misses an important point of linguistics; that taking the Holy Quran word-for-word is not always possible. The Holy Quran addresses this itself. It says:
“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning—they are the basis of the Book—and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking interpretation of it. And none knows its [right] interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’—And none heed except those gifted with understanding.” (Surah Aal-e-‘Imran, Ch.3: V.8)
In the Five-Volume English Commentary of the Holy Quran, it has been explained:
“According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه (capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect.
“It is on record that one day the Holy Prophetsa, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: ‘Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it.’ (Musnad)
“The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Holy Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others.” (Five Volume English Commentary, Vol. II, pp. 455-456)
This explanation challenges the commonly known allegation against Islam that the inspiration for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS stems from their following of the Holy Quran. The ideological claims of these revival movements taking everything in the Holy Quran literally are also dismissed by the sacred text itself so even if these groups claim to be the “followers” of Islam or the Holy Quran, only they are responsible for such a lie and an error so grave of its nature.
The Ahmadiyya Movement
A revival movement by nature, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s main objective is to instil the belief and love of Allah Almighty in people, to serve humanity irrespective of backgrounds, and to promote the true teachings of Islam that have been misused by clerics and unqualified scholars. (The Objectives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, www.alislam.org)
Islam Ahmadiyyat also emphasises the importance of returning to the ultimate teachings of the Holy Quran – but encourages the use of reason and interpretation where commandments are complex or require context, – followed by the ahadith (narrations) of the Holy Prophetsa of Islam. Contrary to how some people understand the movement as a “liberal” form of Islam, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has always avoided wearing a term that defines its movement. Ahmadiyyat considers itself to be an Islamic movement only with the sole purpose and objective of practising and propagating Islam. In doing so, it directly challenges the common understanding that religious fundamentalism always connotes coercion and creates fears of modernity and Western values.
Ahmadiyyat advocates for the implementation of the guidance and commandments set out in the Holy Quran regarding cultural and social practices, but at the same time, also encourages the use of modern advancements in technology, science, education, medicine etc., to provide benefits to mankind and wider society. The Holy Quran also encourages this as it contains prophecies of the advancement in the world with regard to medicine, travel, and publication among others.
Western fear of sharia and Islamic leadership
One of the biggest issues that keeps recurring in the debate around Islam and fundamentalism is the fear of Islam being spread by force with the establishment of a repressive Islamic leadership in the West. Although other systems of Islamic government have widely used the term “Khalifah” and many political ones have existed (Spain, Turkey etc), most Muslims generally accept only one religious Khilafat, which was established, on the precepts of prophethood, after the demise of the Prophet of Islam.
In one narration of the Holy Prophetsa, we find the following:
“Prophethood shall remain among you as long as Allah wills. He will bring about its end and follow it with Khilafat on the precepts of prophethood for as long as He wills and then bring about its end. Kingship shall then follow, to remain as long as Allah wills and then come to an end. There shall then be monarchical despotism which shall remain as long as Allah wills and come to an end upon His decree. There will then emerge Khilafat on the precepts of prophethood.” (Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Kitab ar-riqaq, Bab al-indhari wa t-tahdhir)
In contrast to what many non-Muslims fear and what Western historians allege, just as the first, this second era of Khilafat is also free of any worldly aspirations and would continue till the end of times.
The Ahmadiyya Khilafat was established after the demise of the Promised Messiahas in 1908 – and in fulfilment to the prophecy of the Holy Prophetsa, this is the second spiritual Khilafat in Islam, and free from all kinds of worldly aspirations. It intends to lead and guide the followers of Islam Ahmadiyyat according to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him. Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya is currently in its fifth era under the blessed leadership of Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih Vaa, who has clearly stated:
“Let me make it clear that the institution of Khilafat leading the Ahmadiyya Community has no interest in power or government. Rest assured that true Khilafat has no worldly or political objectives and gains and neither is it gifted to those who have a lust or greed for it. The sole concern of the Ahmadiyya Khilafat is that the people of the world come to recognise their Creator and bow down before the One God and secondly create the spirit of love and harmony among the people of the world.” (“Islam – A Threat or a Source of Peace”, www.alislam.org)
Change in the understanding of the term fundamentalism
There is widespread agreement among scholars that the change in the understanding of fundamentalism and its close association with Islam was due to the Iranian Revolution and the Gulf crisis in the aftermath. Peter Antes argues that the case study of Iran shocked the Western governments and analysts alike as for the “first time in modern history, a revolution was successful based on a religion that […] had its roots not in Western thoughts but in a religious setting that seemed to reject modernisation.” (Peter Antes, “Religious Fundamentalism – A Misleading Concept?”, in Religious Fundamentalism in the Age of Pandemic, ed. by Nina Käsehage [Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2021], p. 253.)
Here is a classic example of “Othering” of the East once again; this problematic terminology around revolutions suddenly changes if the experiences of those places do not go according to the typical Western playbook, and if their revolutions are of a religious nature. Even at present, where Ukrainians confronting the Russian invasion is a struggle for liberation and freedom from illegal and unjust occupation, Palestinian resistance demanding liberation from Israel’s occupation (recognised to be in breach of international law by the United Nations) is considered militant.
The use of violence and coercion and one’s views on it can obviously be debated and deconstructed elsewhere – for example Islam does not permit that harm be inflicted on civilians including non-combatant men, women, children, and the elderly – but it is certainly interesting that the standards to the struggle for liberation change depending on the nations involved.
The response from the international community and the unjust use of the right to veto in the United Nations also adds to these double standards and the hierarchy with which the Security Council operates despite being the ultimate neutral organisation responsible for maintaining peace in the world, due to the power of some wealthy and privileged nations.