Fundamentalism, extremism and Islam

According to the Runnymede Trust (1997) it also refers to the practical consequences of such hostility, like the unfair discrimination against Muslim individuals and communities, and to the exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political and social affairs. In fact, the incident of 9/11 in the US played a tremendous role in the spreading of Islamophobia among the societies in Europe and America.

Especially, the Bush administration could successfully capitalise on this to promote its so-called "war against terrorism" campaign. In fact, the lack of understanding of Islamic theology and political Islam in the media has contributed much toward creating a negative impression in the very psychology of the secular world towards Islam. Consequently most of the average people from Non-Muslim communities view Islam as a religious form of terrorism.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This Islamophobia has coined some new terms, distorting their actual meanings. "Islamic fundamentalism" is one such term widely used to label the deeds of Islamist extremist groups. But historically the term fundamentalism is used in Christian theology with a somewhat positive connotation. During 1865-1910 a group of Protestants in the US initiated a platform named "The World Fundamentalist Association."

This association was widely publicised after the1920s, and their main objective was to uphold the originality of their scripture by opposing its new interpretations. However, in the case of Islam, the word fundamentalism is being used with a negative connotation. Not only the layman, even the media, researchers, politicians, and academics frequently use the term deviating from its original meaning.

Islamic fundamentalism stresses the upholding of the fundamental beliefs in Islam. Broadly speaking these are: i. Kalema (Belief in only one God along with the Prophet) ii. Salat (Prayer to God) iii. Seaam (Fasting for purification) iv. Zakat (Charity) v. Haj (pilgrimage to Mecca). These five cardinal tenets of Islam, in fact, cause no harm to any non-Muslim community in the world. Further, these fundamental beliefs in Islamic theology have no links with terrorism. So there is nothing wrong if any group from Islamic communities advocates for Islamic fundamentalism.

Another Islamic term, "jihad," commonly interpreted as "holy war," creates a negative attitude towards Islamic theology among non-Muslim as well as secular Muslim communities. Like the crusades in Christian dogma, jihad does not mean to initiate war against non-believers. In fact, jihad is exerting oneself for the cause of religion.

The preaching of the Quran: "No compulsion is there in religion (Surah al-Bakarah, verse 256)" has strongly opposed the idea of initiating a "holy war" against non-Muslims. There is nothing in Islam that says that a Muslim should fight in order that religion should live. Islam forbids offensive fighting. Islam says: "Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." (Surah al-Bakarah verse 190-193) So, Islam only allows Muslims to fight a defensive war.

Again, true Islam is more tolerant than any other existing religion and it preaches peaceful co-existence with other religions or beliefs. The Quran explicitly instructs: "Say, O ye that reject faith! I worship not that which ye worship … To you be your way, and to me mine (Surah 109:1, 2, 6)." So, an Islamic fundamentalist cannot be an extremist as his/her principal source of divine instructions is the Quran and it explicitly vocalises against any sort of religious extremism.

Then the obvious question that arises is why the media, academics, politicians or state-men continue to portray Islamic fundamentalism as a sort of religious terrorism. The answer to this question, in fact, lies in their failure to differentiate between Islamic theology and political Islam. Islam is a theology whose main objective is to set up a bridge between mankind and the Creator. By following the guidelines given in the Quran, Muslims believe they would achieve greater success in the hereafter.

However, deviating from teaching of Islam, some vested quarters in Muslim societies in different countries overemphasise the political aspects of Islam rather than theology. These sections of the Muslim community may be termed as Islamist groups. By analysing their characteristics and objectives, these groups may broadly be classified into two. The first group tries to capture state power in different Muslim countries by capitalising on the name of Islam and the sentiment of the Muslim community.

Many secular parties in Muslim majority countries use Islam and Islamic values as their political agenda just to get sympathy from Muslim communities. Their objective is not to establish an Islamic state and they are not orthodox like the second group. The prime objective of this group may be compared with any other democratic political party elsewhere. During the partition of India, Mr. Jinnah's Muslim League was an example of such a group. The then Muslim League of India advocated to uphold the interests of the Muslim community rather than promising to establish an Islamic state in accordance with Islamic jurisprudence or Sharia.

The political agenda of the second Islamist group is to establish a Sharia or Islamic jurisprudence based Muslim country. So to understand the very perspective of this group, we need to probe into Sharia in general. Sharias were developed by some Islamic scholars to control the medieval Muslim societies in the light of instructions given in the Quran, Hadith (saying of the prophet), and sunnah (the deeds approved by the prophet) considering the social context, social structure, economic relationships etc, during that period.

Obviously the primary source of Sharia is the Quran. The methodologies adopted for producing Sharia are: i. Ijma (Consensus) ii. Qiyas (Analogy), and iii. Ijtihad (Progressive reasoning by analogy). There are many schools of Sharia: namely, Hanafi, Maleqi, etc, and on many issues verdicts given by two Sharias contradict each other. This contradiction, in fact, is due to time and context dependency of Sharias.

So, Sharias are not universal prescriptions for the Muslim community. Sharias should be modified to address our present problems, following the guidelines given in Quran, Hadith and Sunnah, after methodical analysis of the relevant issues in our contemporary timeframe. Medieval Sharias are not enough to provide appropriate solutions of many problems in our present complex social structure and social relationships. In fact, many Islamic scholars have advocated for modernisation of Sharias. For instance, the great poet and philosopher of Pakistan, Dr. Allama Iqbal, in a letter to Md. Ali Jinnah also suggested the modernisation of Sharias.

The Sharia based Islamic groups fail to understand the dynamism of Islam. It may be noted that Islam is not a static religion. Rather, Allah declares Islam to be a religion for all people of all times. This dynamism of Islam in fact lies in the evolution of Sharias. Islamic scholars should pay special attention to this regard. If we fail to modernise the Islamic Sharias then possibly many orthodox leaders like Shaekh Rahman, Bangla Bhai will appear again and again to torment our society by distorting the real image of Islam.

The author is Assistant Professor and Research Coordinator of the Department of Computer Science of American International University-Bangladesh (AIUB).