While I was delivering a talk on ‘extremism in the religion of Islam’, a member of the audience shouted: “Bush, Blair and Bin Laden are all f------s”. I pretended that I had not heard but this was to no avail as the same individual shouted again - but this time louder than previously - “All of them are f------s”.  I was a bit taken aback as the heckler’s pronunciation was rather difficult to interpret (like mine!) and I first thought that he meant the offensive six-letter designation. It was therefore a great relief when someone clarified that he instead meant the word ‘f’ with fourteen letters - fundamentalist. I was then able to comment that besides sharing initial ‘B’ in their respective family names, the three also appear to like using the word ‘Hate’.

 

I was referring to the fact that according to Tony Blair, Muslim fundamentalists “Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy”.[2] George W. Bush held a similar view when he was questioned during a press conference.[3] Of course anyone following the news would not have missed Osama Bin Laden’s favourite phrase: ‘The West hate Muslims’. All three individuals are quite strong in what they believe and hence a clash is inevitable - not what the late Samuel Huntington referred to as a ‘Clash of Civilization’ but rather what Tariq Ali calls the ‘Clash of Fundamentalisms’.[4] Many attending the talk nodded their heads in agreement about the existence of Muslims fundamentalists; some agreed but considered western foreign policies to be ‘the breeding ground’.

 

Western foreign policies do to a certain extent relate to the rise in violent Islamic fundamentalism that our world is currently witnessing. Any attempt to deny this amounts to nothing but sheer ignorance. However, the willingness and the determination to take one own’s life and that of many innocents in such a barbaric fashion cannot be attributed solely to the need to challenge Western foreign policies. The fact that the perpetrator expects an abundant reward should not be ignored. Sadly such rewards are derived from readings in the Qur’an through the lens of fundamentalists. The reading of the Qur’an and the tradition, I said in my talk, are at the heart of the matter. I was not surprised to witness an angry reaction and denial on the part of those who sought to oppose the view that the Qur’an and the traditions could be the source of ‘inspiration and breeding ground’ for Islamic Fundamentalisms. Hence it is from the background of this denial - which is shared by many Muslims - that I wish to explore the subject in this brief article. In order to show that literal and selective reading of the Qur’an can result in devastating misinterpretation of the scripture.

 

 

It is quite remarkable to note that until 1950 the word ‘Fundamentalism’ had no entry in the Oxford dictionary. One may even find it astonishing to learn that the word originated from the United States of America, more exactly California.  

 

We are reminded by Malise Ruthven that the word ‘Fundamentalism’ as a concept was first coined by two devoted Christian brothers, Milton and Lyman Stewart, who in 1910 ‘embarked on a five-year programme of sponsorship for a series of pamphlets which were sent free of charge to English-speaking Protestant pastors, evangelists, missionaries, theological professors, theological students, YMCA secretaries, Sunday School superintendents, religious lay workers, and editors of religious publications throughout the world’.[5] The title of this booklet was ‘The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth’ and one of its aims was to preach the ‘inerrancy of the Bible’.[6] Ruthven admits that there may not be one single definition of the word which ‘will never be uncontested’[7]; but agrees that the word ‘originated in the unique context of American religious pluralism and the separation of church and state’.[8] According to Jay M. Harris, ‘The word fundamentalism has come to imply an orientation to the world that is anti-intellectual, bigoted, and intolerant’.[9] Harris went on to say that fundamentalism is also ‘applied to those whose life-style and politics are unacceptable to modern, Western eyes and, most particularly to those who would break down the barrier we have erected [in America] between church and state’.[10]  

 

Hence in the context of today’s theological polarizations, it may be salutary to find that neither the word nor the concept of fundamentalism emerged from Islam but rather from Evangelical Christian cousins in the United States who believed in the literal meaning of the Bible.[11] These superficial polarizations sometimes give rise to distorted extremist views such as those of a Christian group in Florida called the ‘New Testament Church’ who are planning an  ‘International Burn a Qur’an Day’ on the 9th anniversary of September 2001 attack.

 

 

The word ‘Fundamentalist’ is translated as ‘usuli’ in Arabic - someone ‘who relies on the fundamentals or basics of something’.[12] If one is to apply this definition to Islam, then all Muslims are by definition fundamentalists because all Muslims believe in the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an. Similarly there are some Christian groups in the US and elsewhere who are ‘fundamentalists’ in the sense of believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. However if this ‘fundamentalism’ extends further so that adherents are even willing to use violence to justify their cause, the concept acquires a more sinister significance; and we can say that there are many Muslim groups who can justifiably be put under this umbrella[13]. 

 

Many scholars refer to the wahhabi movement of the eighteenth century as the first Muslim fundamentalist group but this is not accurate. Islamic groups who interpreted the Qur’an literally and employed violence go back as far as the seventh century. Just a few decades after the death of the Prophet Muhammad a group from within the Muslim community named khawarij or the kharijites emerged with an extreme approach to the Qur’an.[14]  Fazlur Rahman not only agrees that the kharijites[15] were responsible for the ‘first active schism in Islam’[16] but also believes that their interpretation of the Quran was ‘extremely strict’.[17]

 

The kharijites considered if any Muslim who ‘commits a grave wrong, without due repentance, he/she ceases to have faith and becomes an infidel and shall burn eternally in the hell fire’.[18] The kharijites would even go further in their extreme interpretation of the Qur’an by arguing that anyone who does not adhere to their doctrines is the infidel who must be fought.[19] It is interesting to note here that the Kharijites were not fighting non-Muslims but rather Muslims; and they found the justification for their stance from the Qur’an.  Furthermore, the kharijites added Jihad as one of the pillars of Islam, hence making six instead of five. Richard Bonney makes the following comments about the Kharijites:  ‘Many of them were Qur’anic fundamentalists. They used an expurgated Qur’an without chapter 12; they were also exclusivists, who believed that they were the only true Muslims’.[20]  One would indeed be hypocritical to say that the kharijites’ actions did not stem from their direct reading and understanding of the Qur’an.[21] Many modern militant Islamic groups such as al Qaeda, led by Bin Laden, have adopted and advocated the same ‘procedure’ as the one adapted by the kharijites.[22]  

 

 

In his acclaimed work, ‘Anthology of Islamic Literature’, James Kritzeck drew our attention to the way in which some highly intelligent people can hold different opinions about the Qur’an.[23] Kritzeck quotes M. Pickthall, who described the Qur’an as a book that moves men to tears and ecstasy; while Thomas Carlyle for his part considered the same Qur’an as ‘As tedious a piece of reading [and] a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite’.[24]  Both descriptions can be justified, of course, depending on the reader and the perspective taken.

 

One fact, however, is certain: the lives of 1.3 billion Muslims are guided by the Qur’an. The Qur’an for Muslims, as Abdullah Saeed puts it, is ‘The Word of God and remains the prime source of authority for Islam’s ethical and legal systems. Muslims make consistent efforts to relate it to their contemporary concerns and needs”.[25] As a matter of fact the Qur’an states on several occasions that it is the source of guidance and the light, and that Muslims ought to act according to its teaching.  Moreover, Muslims very strongly consider the Qur’an to be the literal word of God. As a matter of fact the belief in the literal meaning of the Qur’an as the word of God is at the heart of faith of Islam.  To this Farid Esack made the following comments: “For Muslims the Qur’an as the compilation of the ‘Speech of God’ does not refer to a book inspired or influenced by Him or written under the guidance of His spirit. Rather, it is viewed as His direct speech’.[26]

 

In the ninth century, an attempt was made to challenge the belief in the Qur’an as a literal word of God. The challenge was initiated by the mutazilites - a Muslim group known to the West as the ‘Rationalists’. They argued very strongly that the Qur’an was not the word of God but rather a part of God’s creation. Supported by the state at the time, the mutazilites gained a considerable number of adherents and sadly persecuted those who refused to support their view. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, the founder of one of the four most famous Islamic schools of thought, earned his fame during this time because of his refusal to adhere to the mutazilites’ doctrine of the creation of the Qur’an and his subsequent imprisonment.[27] In his refusal he argued vehemently that the Qur’an was not created or part of God’s creation but rather the very literal word of God: ‘kalamu al- Allah’.[28] 

 

This period occupied a central point in the history of Islamic theology and played a vital part in the shaping the minds of many Muslim exegeses over generations.  It is interesting to note that this debate took place among Muslims at the time and the very nature of the Qur’an was at the centre of the debate. The Qur’an was questioned rigorously and yet no person labeled his opponent infidel. Sadly enough, today any Muslim who attempts to question the nature of the Qur’an is denigrated in this way and the non-Muslim is seen as anti-Islam. I personally believe that this episode and the heated debate associated with it need to be revisited if Muslims are to find a practical and meaningful interpretation of the Qur’an.  

 

 

The Qur’an refers to itself as ‘kitab’ (Book) and sometimes as a ‘kalimah’ or ‘kalimat’ (word or words). To some Muslim scholars this indicates that the Qur’an is a spoken word coming from God to the Prophet Muhammad.[29] The spoken words were Arabic and that is because Muhammad himself spoke Arabic. This was not a new aspect of the process of revelation because the Qur’an itself reports that God spoke to people in their own language (Q.14:4). Hence if Muhammad was an Englishman God certainly would have spoken to him in English. 

 

Muhammad did not interpret all the words of the Qur’an to his companions before he died and hence this opens the door for future Muslims to seek to grasp the meaning of the Qur’an by themselves. There are two terms that are used in the process of the interpretation of the Qur’an: ‘tafsir’ and ‘t’awil’. ‘tafsir’ is commonly agreed amongst the vast majority of the Muslim scholars to mean literally the science of the interpretation of the Qur’anic verses.[30] ‘t’awil’ linguistically speaking means ‘return’ that is going back to the source or returning to the origin of something.[31] Edward Lane further interprets the meaning as ‘discovering, detecting, revealing, developing, disclosing, explaining, expounding or interpreting; that to which a thing is, or may be, reduced, or that which it comes, or may come, to be”.[32] Both tafsir and t’awil, according to Seed, are used more or less synonymously as explanations of the Qur’anic verses.[33]  Beside tafsir and t’awil there are two widely advocated approaches to commenting on the Qur’an. The first is a ‘tafsir bi al-ma’thur’ interpretation, based on traditions or text. In other words, this form of interpretation means that any verse should be interpreted solely on the basis of other Qur’anic verses or traditions.[34] The second approach is ‘tafsir bi al ray’ interpretation based on reason - or what Neal Robinson calls “exegesis on the basis of informed opinion”.[35] 

 

Today Qur’an interpretation based traditions is the most commonly used among the Muslim communities.[36] This arguably amounts to nothing but ‘taglid’, which means blind following. Adopting an interpretation based solely on traditions is nothing but following the previous Muslim interpreters without questioning the circumstances in which these interpretations were made; this is a very dangerous approach.

 

The Qur’an, as Professor A. Haleem reminds us, “alludes to events without giving their historical background. Those who heard the Qur’an at the time of its revelation were fully aware of the circumstances”.[37] Not even all the companions of Muhammad at his time fully understood the interpenetration and meaning of some Qur’anic verses.  Many of his companions used to come to Muhammad to seek some explanation.  To have knowledge of the occasions of the revelation was vital not only during the time of Muhammad; ‘later generations of Muslims had [also] to rely on the body of literature explaining the circumstances of revelations (asbab al-nuzul’) in order to be able to interpret any verse’.[38] 

 

Hence it would be a grotesque mistake for any Muslim to apply any Qur’anic verse without knowing the circumstances in which these verses were revealed, for the content and style of the Qur’anic verses are frequently complex.

 

 

It would be helpful to quote Milan Rai at length. A fundamentalist group, the latter said, ‘invites converts to undertake their own personal, literal reading of holy texts. As many scholars have noted ‘‘fundamentalists are rebels against their religious establishments’’. Previous authorities, theologians, and clerics can be set aside, and what is claimed to be a ‘pure’ version of the faith can be directly gleaned from the Holy Book. However, the ‘traditions’ that fundamentalists appeal to ‘‘are no more self-evident and uncontested than their scriptures’’.[39] 

 

Muslim fundamentalists have a unique and alarming way of reading the Qur’anic scripture, which can be summarized as follows:  Islam is the only true religion; only the teaching of the Qur’an ought to be followed; anyone who refuses to follow Islam should be fought; Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends; the whole world should be converted to Islam and any Muslim, wherever he/she is, has a religious obligation to participate in this cause.  

 

 

There are a few Qur’anic verses which, if interpreted literally, lend support beyond any reasonable doubt to the fundamentalists’ stance. The following are the most quoted ones: ‘The only true religion with God is Islam’ (Q.3:19). The Qur’an reads further: ‘Whoever seeks any religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers’ (Q.3:86). ‘This day, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favour upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion’ (Q. 5:4). 

 

Muslim fundamentalists see the above-quoted verses as instructions to reject anyone who is not a Muslim. For them the matter is quite straightforward. If some Christian groups consider salvation to be accessible only through Jesus, for Muslim fundamentalists salvation is only through Islam. They also hold the belief that both Christians and Jews have religious obligations to convert to Islam, and if they refuse to do so they will be among the losers.  

 

 

In the Qur’an the Jews and the Christians are referred to as ‘ahl al-kitab’ ( People of the Book). Hence by referring to them as ‘People of the Book’, the Qur’an indicates clearly that they are holders of divine scriptures. For Muslim fundamentalists, however, Muslims should not have anything to do with Christians and Jews. Jews and Christians are enemies of Islam and Muslims therefore should not take them as friends. The Qur’an reads as follows:

 

    ‘O you, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, God guides not the wrongdoing people’ ( Q.5:51).

 

For Muslim fundamentalism there in no difference between Jews, Christians and the ‘mushrikun’ (polytheists) because none of them would want to see anything good happening to the Muslims. They quote the Qur’an: ‘Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture: Jews and Christians, nor ‘mushrikun’ like that there should be sent down to you any good from your Lord’(Q. 2:105).  

 

 

The most worrying aspect of the Muslim fundamentalists’ reading of the Qur’an is the belief that whoever rejects Islam ought to be a target. Here again they quote the Qur’an selectively without taking into consideration the occasions of the revelation. A Qur’anic verse reads: “Kill them whenever you find them”. And the Qur’an went on to say in the same chapter frequently quoted by fundamentalists: ‘And fight them until there is no more ‘fitnah’ (disbelief) and worship is for God alone’ (Q. 2:193). ‘And fight them until there is no more fitnah and until the religion will all be for Allah alone’ ( Q. 8:39).

 

One particular chapter both fundamentalists and those who seek to vilify Islam are fond of is the so-called ‘sword chapter’, which is chapter 9 of the Qur’an. From this very chapter the following verses are most frequently quoted: ‘Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush’(Q. 9:5). The same chapter goes on to say the following: ‘Fight against those who believe not in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger [Muhammad] and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay Jizyah[tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued’ (Q. 9:29).

 

The Qur’an also reads, ‘And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you (Muslims) do not ally to make victorious God’s religion [Islam], there will be fitnah (polytheism) and oppression on the earth, and great mischief and corruption’(Q. 8:73).  Moreover, fundamentalists consider any Muslim who attempts to disunite the Muslims or to prevent them from achieving unity as an enemy of Islam who ought to be killed. [40]     

 

 

“The problem of Islam is nothing but a lack of authority.  Had you Muslims had a pontiff as we Christians do, many problems would not have occurred”, my devoted friend told me once. The tone of his voice - which was accompanied by both sadness and a sense of guilt - still resonates in my head. Sadness because we were just attending a commemoration of the victims of the London 7/7 bombings; guilt because he felt that many good Muslims who are law-abiding citizens are being treated as if they are the same as those who committed the heinous crime of 7/7. 

 

To be fair, only those who are ill-informed put all Muslims in one basket. However, as far as Islam’s lack of authority is concerned, my friend is not the only one who holds such views. Many people including Muslim scholars consider Islam’s lack of authority to be the root cause of the problems of the Islamic faith. However, I neither accede to this argument nor do I believe the institution of pontiff has sorted all problems that Christianity is facing or is even capable of doing so. In Islam God is the sole divine authority who is absent but is represented by texts. Every knowledgeable person can interpret the texts providing of course that a range of principles are met. The spirit and the wisdom of the texts are at the heart of these principles and need to be held at maximum by anyone seeking to interpret them correctly.

 

In his remarkable book, Abdullah Saeed reminds us of the three levels of the message of the Qur’an: (1) language and utterance (2) letters and writing (3) spirit and meaning.[41] The spirit of the Qur’an is nothing but God who is mentioned 2,692 times in the Quran.[42] The characteristic of the God of the Qur’an is nothing but the God of mercy. Hence it is not by coincidence that all chapters in the Qur’an except one begin with formula: ‘In the name of God the most Merciful and the Compassionate’ (Q.1:1). The Qur’an further informs that the mercy of God ‘embraces all things’ (Q.7: 155). 

 

Far away from both its spirit or wisdom, Muslim fundamentalists focus on the language of the Qur’an, paying no attention to the circumstances in which these words were mentioned and focusing on ‘fighting’, ‘killing’ and ‘jihad’ or ‘holy war’. So eager are they to fight they even ignore the fact that the concept of ‘Holy War’ does not appear in the Qur’an.[43] In Islam a war is either just or unjust but never ‘holy’ as it was known in medieval Christendom[44] or in George W. Bush’s presidential period. So eager are they to convert people to Islam that Muslim fundamentalists ignore the Qur’anic statement that ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (Q. 2:256). Furthermore, they are ignorant of the fact that throughout the history of Islam, Muhammad never forced or fought any war with the aim of converting people to Islam. Muhammad repeatedly said that his duty was to convey the message and that it was up to the person to accept it or not to accept; and that as far as conversion is concerned, it is God’s responsibility (Q. 10:99).

 

After all that has been said, can it be stated categorically that the Qur’an is not ‘the source of inspiration and breeding ground’ for Islamic fundamentalism? The answer is not straightforward. However, western Muslims can play an important part in restoring the revealed truth of the Quran through careful and thorough interpretation of the verses. An example of such a contribution would be investment in the production of a new printed Qur’an – and here I must emphasize that I am not asking for a ‘new Qur’an’ but rather a new form of printing and formatting. In this newly printed Qur’an, all verses dealing with issues highlighted in this article such as ‘People of the Book’, ‘fighting’, ‘killing’ or ‘jihad’ would be accompanied by footnotes that clarify both the context and circumstances in which these verses were revealed. It is to be hoped that once this newly printed Qur’an was in full circulation, the position of the fundamentalists would not only be weakened, but those verses that they employ to cause mayhem would in turn be reinterpreted to restore the spiritual and peaceful message of the Qur’an.

 

 

[1] Imam Dr Mamadou Bocoum is presently head of the Library and a lecturer at the Muslim College, London and a Chaplain at Ford Prison, Sussex. He has a BA in Arabic Language and travelled extensively throughout the Muslim world, which has expanded his understanding of traditional Islamic scholarship. In 1998, Mamadou moved to the United Kingdom to cultivate his appreciation of Islam as it is understood in the West. Having obtained his MA in Islamic Studies in 2003 he went on to pursue a certificate in Imamship in 2004 and a PhD in Islamic Studies, which he was awarded in 2009. He is committed to interfaith work and has participated in various interfaith activities, lecturing on both the development and maintenance of relations between the Abrahamic faiths. 

[2] John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam, What a Billion Muslims Really Think ( Gallup Press, 2007), p.29.

[3] Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms, Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity (Verso, 2002), p. IX.

[4]  Ibid., Also see John Esposito, Islam The Straight Path (Oxford University Press, 1998); Fawaz A. Gerges, The Far Enemy, Why Jihad Went Global (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Suha Taji-Farouki, Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Qur’an (Oxford University Press, 2004); Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago University Press, 1966); Fred Halliday, Islam & The Myth of Confrontation (I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1999).

[5] Males Ruthven, Fundamentalism the Search for Meaning (Oxford University Press, 2004), p.10.

[6] Ibid.,  p. 11.

[7] Ibid., p. 8.

[8] Ibid.,

[9] Ibid., p.7.

[10] Ibid.,

[11] Ibid., p.9.

[12] Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Great Theft, Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (HarperCollins, 2005), p. 18.

[13] Ibid.,

[14] Fazlur Rahman, A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism, Revival and Reform in Islam, Edited with an Introduction by Ebrahim Moosa ( Oneworld Publication, 2000), p. 33; Fazlur Rahman, Islam (University of Chicago Press, 1966).

[15] Kharijites means those who secede and at present most of them live in Oman and North Africa and are known as Ibadis.

[16] Fazlur Rahman, ‘A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism’, op. cit.,  p. 33.

[17] Ibid.,

[18] Ibid.,

[19]  Rahman, ‘A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism’, op. cit., p. 34. 

[20] Richard Bonney, Jihad, from Qur’an to bin Laden (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 55

[21] Rahman, ‘A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism’ op. cit., p. 34.

[22] Ibid., p. 56.

[23]James Kritzeck, Anthology of Islamic Literature (Penguin Books, 1964), p. 33.

[24] Ibid.,

[25] Abdullah Saeed, Interpreting the Qur’an, Towards a Contemporary Approach (Routledge, 2006), p. 9.

[26] Ibid., p. 40.

[27] Michael Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought (Cambridge University Press), pp-196-204.

[28] W. Montgomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Oneworld, 1998), p. 144.

[29] Saeed, op. cit., p. 41.

[30] Ibid., p. 57; Ulrika Martensson, ‘Through the Lens of Modern Hermeneutics: Authorial Intention in al-Tabari ’s and al-Ghazali’ s Interpretation of Q. 24:35’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies. Vol 9. Issue 2, (2009), pp. 20-44.

[31] Saeed, op. cit., p. 57.

[32] Ibid.,

[33] Ibid.,

[34]  Robinson, ‘Islam’, op. cit., p. 67.

[35] Ibid., p. 68.

[36] Ibid., p. 67.

[37]   M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford World’ S Classics The Qur’an (Oxford University Press, 2005), P.XXII

[38] Ibid.,

[39] Milan Rai, 7/7 The London Bombings Islam &The Iraq War (Pluto Press, 2006), p.120.

[40] See Qur’an interpretation of the verse 73 of Chapter 7 by Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan, the former Director of the University Hospital of Islamic University of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah. The way that he explained the verse is quite alarming; today this translation is widely accessible for it is distributed freely by Saudi Arabia.

[41] Saeed, op. cit., p.31.

[42] Robinson, ‘Islam’, op. cit., p.76.

[43] Abou El Fadl, op. cit., p. 222.

[44] Ibid.; Reuven Firestone, Jihad The Origin of Holy War in Islam (Oxford University Press 1999), pp.3-18

 

 

[source]