Fundamentalism and Extremism in Islam

Religion is a part of everyday life to many people, even atheists who go around and scorn religion. But what brings about an air of negativity in religion is the notion of extremism. When one thinks of extremism, one thinks of fanatical advocates of a religion, and spreading it. One thinks of violence, and a mind set in Macchiavellian philosophical beliefs. Ignorance and isolation are hallmarks of extremism, as are centricism, arrogance and close-mindedness. Then there's the pseudo-synonym of extremism that boggles everyone's mind: fundamentalism. Fundamentalism involves following the fundamentals, or basics, of a certain belief, and that's that. Fundamentalism, however, is often confused with extremism in that while fundamentalism involves tolerance (tolerance is a core of most if not all world religions), extremism more often than not does not involve tolerance.

Islam has been at the center of debate when it comes to fundamentalism and extremism, mostly due to world events that involve Muslim extremists fighting in Iraq or Palestine. Then there's the firebrand of Muslim politicians who are part of the big Muslim Brotherhood political movement, who have made their voices heard to the extent that secularists felt threatened. According to Wikipedia, Islamic fundamentalism, incorrectly called "Islamic conservatism" in my opinion, involves the following:

It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. This may describe the private religious attitudes of individuals and have no relationship with larger social groups.

What makes this point essentially wrong is that Muslims should follow the literal interpretations of the Koran and Hadith with the grain of salt called context. Too often have Koranic verses been incorrectly translated and interpreted, and thus this shuts out all scholarly approaches to Islamic text. The Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged Muslims to carefully study the words of God (Koran), not just read it and take what's written in it at face value. That's why there are so many text commentators out there who are willing to provide the best interpretations of the Koran and Hadith.

The word "Islamic fundamentalism" also

describes a variety of religious movements and political parties in Muslim communities.

In Islamic communities, these parties are often looked up to more than not. While a religious party in power might prove to rule the nation in a theocracy, not all of them might give up the so-called "secular" values. These parties have support of a large part of the Muslim community, although their methods are usually scorned. It is possible, like we've seen in Somalia, that Muslim parties can promote human rights, including women's rights, and more freedom and openness in society. It's just that whenever we think of religious rule, we think of the Caliphates and people like Charlemagne and Pope Urban. We also think of Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, it is in my best belief that it is possible to make religious values compatible with "secular" values like libertarianism and liberalism. That's assuming a correct interpretation of Muslim verses that encourage liberal values in society; one source that helps in explaining the above points here is this one.

However,

As opposed to the above two usages, in the West "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law. The more radical of these Islamists may advocate violent overthrow of secular states, or even Islamist terrorism.

The last point is obviously talking about Muslim extremists, not fundamentalists. While it may appear that extremists are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are extremists, especially when you take the notion that Islamic fundamentalism consist of the previous values in the previous paragraph. It is assumed that secular laws are better than religious laws, but that's not what I'm writing about here.

Either way, that's Islamic fundamentalism and extremism explained. I hope that people come to understand the difference between the 2. Granted, we've all had bad impressions on both, even the former, but fundamentalism can be refined for the betterness of society and, in the end, might even compete and oust with secular values. Am I calling for a theocracy? No. Extremist rule? No way. But a religious rule that upholds Islamic values at their finest? Why not?

Salaam, from
Saracen