Fanaticism: a major obstacle in the Muslim Christian dialogue. The case of twentieth century Islamic fundamentalism.

• Author: Marin-Guzman, Roberto

"ISLAM CAN ONLY SUCCEED BY the use of weapons, as was true in the past", wrote Muhammad 'Abd al-Salam Faraj in his al-Farida al-Gha'iba. Faraj is one of the most influential fundamentalist leaders in Egypt, and the major ideologue of the radical group Tanzim al-Jihad, a fundamentalist cell, responsible for the assassination of President Sadat in 1981. Faraj and his followers propose violence, terrorism, and political assassinations, as a means to accomplish their objectives. This violence and their attacks to Coptic Christians -an example of their intolerance--are in stark contrast to the understanding, peace, forgiveness and tolerance that Islam purports to hold as virtues. Unlike some practices of Christianity, Islam is a militant religion, although this militancy is mainly reserved for spiritual matters, as well as in dally life, but only under very specific circumstances. As a general rule, peace, forgiveness, and understanding are always highly recommended to the believer. Modern Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, emphasize the militant practice of Islam and try to justify their violence through religion.

How has it been possible for modern fundamentalists to emphasize the militant doctrines of Islam and, instead of peace and understanding, preach aggression and violence? How have they managed to employ these means and forget the other messages contained in the Qur'an? For example: "Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime" (IV, 136); "Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians--whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doth right--they shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" (V, 69); "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deifies and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower" (II, 256)?

Islam also accepts the self-defense, as contained in the Qur'an: "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low" (IX, 29); and "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lot Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers" (II, 190-191) also: "O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou art not a believer', seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever Informed of what ye do" (IV, 94).

Despite this, Islamic scripture frequently calls for peace: "And it they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He is the Hearer, the Knower" (VIII, 61).

Modern radical fundamentalists take qatalu fi sabil Allah (fight in the way of Allah) and the other doctrines of self-defense out of context to justify the violence they employ to accomplish their objectives. They also take out of context and try to put into practice the Qur'anic passage: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush." (IX, 5).

How has it been possible for modern Muslim fundamentalists to abrogate the traditional Islamic scriptural insistence on tolerance for Jews and Christians, a major characteristic of this religion during the Middle Ages? How have they managed to change this into intolerance, violence and persecutions in modern times? The purpose of this essay is to analyze these issues, answer the questions, and to investigate Islamic fundamentalist groups, which have become a major obstacle in the Christian-Muslim dialogue.

It is important to keep in mind that the intolerance and systematic violence of most of the modern fundamentalist groups are not intrinsic to Islam; they are part of these groups' rejection of the secular governments in the Muslim States, as well as a reaction to colonialism, economic exploitation, social grievances, and the unequal distribution of wealth which has caused class struggles. For many fundamentalist leaders the use of violence and the declaration of Jihads are the only valid means to struggle against societies they consider to be Jahiliyya (characteristic of the situation in pre-Islamic Arabia before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad; i.e., the time of polytheism). Their negative feelings against the West are a result of their resentment.

This essay will also analyze the response of the West to fanatical Muslim fundamentalists, a response that has also led to prejudices, misunderstandings and generalizations and stereotyping.

Two final purposes of this article are to clarify that not all Muslims are fundamentalists, nor are they fanatical, violent, or aggressive as some in the West have often portrayed them. It also explains that, despite the islamiyyun's opposition to inter-religious dialogue, their rejection of the West, and their attacks on Christians--actions that have blocked and hurt the dialogue on certain levels- the mutual understanding between Christianity and Islam and the interest to continue the dialogue persists among many Christians and Muslims. No matter how vehement their opposition to the dialogue has been, the islamiyyun have not been able to annihilate it. On the contrary, the interest in keeping it alive has survived despite the ordeals.

THE CONCEPT OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM

Fundamentalism is a term used mainly by Christians and the West. When the term is applied to Islam, it causes difficulties and misunderstandings. The use of this term has become common, and it is often applied to those Muslims, individuals or groups, who are radical, militant, and fanatical, i.e., those who preach violence and other aggressive means such as Jihads, and terrorist acts in order to achieve their goals.

Muslim scholars, on the other hand, have used various words to refer to those who wish to revive Islam. These words have different connotations than the term fundamentalism has in the West. For example islah means reform, salafiyya implies a return to ancestors, tajdid is renewal, nahda is renaissance. Other terms that have been applied to the radical Muslims are takfir (excommunication), hijra (flight from unbelief), and islamiyyun (islamists). This lest term, as well as the phrase "radical Muslims," are the most precise notions that may be applied to those Muslim groups who wish to revive Islam and who practice violent means. They call themselves islamiyyun. None of the above meanings for islah, salafiyya, tajdid, nahda, takfir, or hijra, convey the exact meaning for radical Muslims. In order for both Westerners and Muslims to understand what I am saying in this essay, I will use the words fundamentalists and islamiyyun (Islamists) as synonyms, as well as the terms "radical Islam" and "radical Muslims." It is important, however, to keep in mind the subtle differences and to be aware of the compromises implied in the use of these terms.

Islamic fundamentalism stems from the desire to return to the fundamentals of Islam, which include the Qur'an, the Sunna (the tradition of the Prophet and the sayings and deeds of Muhammad) and the Shari'a (the Islamic Law). The aims of Islamic fundamentalism are to rescue the core values of Islam, to restore the Islamic state and to oppose anything that has penetrated Islamic society (umma) as an innovation (bid'a). Bid'a refers to everything that is contrary to Islamic principles. Fundamentalism follows the teachings of original Islam and makes no distinction between politics and religion. Due to this, in some cases, such as in Iran, fundamentalist leaders assume that the political guidance of the society must come from the 'ulema or religious leaders. When the 'ulema become a part of what the Islamists consider a non-Islamic government, or when they align themselves with secular political factions, then the islamiyyun are bound to direct their struggle against them. Such has been the case in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, among many others. To the Islamists, the restoration of original Islam in present-day society seems to be the only alternative to failure, crisis and secularism.

Islamic fundamentalism contains three basic tensions that happen to be inherent to Islam itself. (1)

1. Transcendence vs. immanence of God 2. Diversity vs. unity 3. Authenticity vs. openness (keeping to the old ways vs. admitting new ways) 1. The first tension, brought about by the conflict between the idea of the transcendence versus that of the immanence of God, suffuses all the main religious traditions of the Middle East. According to Max Weber, in this geographic area, the definition of God encompasses personal, transcendent and ethical forms. (2) During the beginning period of Islam, the transcendental view of God was strongly emphasized to contrast with the naturalist animistic tendency prevalent at the time. (3) Nevertheless, the personal or immanent view of God also found its place in Islam. The gap between whet is human and divine was narrowed by the Islamic view that man is close to God because of the virtue, forgiveness, and mercy of Allah. (4) And thus Allah is close to the pious man.

   The belief that God is transcendent...