What is fundamentalism?

In this series I tackle the sensitive issue of Islamist influences within Britain and their goal to see an Islamic state, or Khalifa. I contrast this with the Christian concept of the kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom or the reign of God in our hearts through faith in Christ.In this third and final part I answer those who would reject both the Christian kingdom of God and the Islamist Khalifa as merely rival dogmas coming from two extremist or fundamentalist positions within these respective religions.

In today’s “secular society’ anyone who takes the Bible seriously is usually dismissed as a “religious fundamentalist’ and often grouped with other so-called fundamentalists, especially those who hold to radical Islam. In this way Bible believing Christians are said to be no different from the kind of Muslims who were responsible for the 7/7 bombings in London and those suspected to be behind the recent car bombs in London and Glasgow.

There have, at times, been Christian fundamentalists who resorted to violence in the pursuit of their cause. For example, some calling themselves Christians committed murder in their battle against abortion in the USA. The Oklahoma bombers of 1995 were said to have been influenced by extremist “Christian’ militia groups. Both Protestant and Catholic paramilitary organisations were involved in terrorism during the “troubles’ in Northern Ireland.

But those who do such things deny the clear and unambiguous teaching of Jesus who said, “My kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my children would fight”, and who also said, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” But the issue is not so clear when it comes to Islam whose founder declared in what is claimed to be a direct word from Allah in Surah 47:4, “So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them).”

If fundamentalism means taking a religious text seriously, then we need more Christian fundamentalism, not less, and the term should be used as a complement reserved for those Christians who are truly following Christ in today’s world. But the term is not used in this way at all.

Fundamentalism refers to a tendency said to be found in all major religions today which, not only interprets religious texts literally, but also seeks to implement religious teaching through aggressive political means – the very opposite to the teaching of Jesus who repudiated such politicising of the gospel.

The gospel is about proclamation and persuasion, not coercion or control. In Luke 20:22-25, Jesus separated the claims of church and state showing that state or government had no right to determine the religious views of its citizens.Whenever the church lost sight of this, disaster was not far behind – whether we speak of the efforts of Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, or John Calvin and his attempts to introduce a form of theocracy in Geneva during the Reformation, or the botched attempts of more recent times, such as the efforts of the Right wing Moral Majority to “make society Christian’ through aggressive Christian political campaigning in the USA. Such an approach denies to people created with free will their God-given right to choose their religious beliefs according to their own conscience.

This is why the term “fundamentalist’ does not apply to us, or indeed, most evangelicals in Britain today. While we uphold the “fundamentals’ of the Christian faith, we are not fundamentalist in the modern meaning of the word.

The term “fundamentalist’ was first used of Christians at the beginning of the 20th Century when a group of evangelicals wrote a series of tracts opposing liberal theology and upholding fundamental doctrines of the New Testament. It was a valid defence of the gospel against the onslaught of the liberal school of theology.

Liberals were the product of the Enlightenment of the 18th Century in which rationalism (or reason) was asserted as the prime means of determining truth. In its extreme forms rationalism meant that there could be no God and no revelation from him and faith was re-defined or limited to belief in that which could be demonstrated rationally.

By the 19th Century this approach had influenced Christian theology to the point that the Bible was stripped of its supernatural content and treated as nothing more than literature or the construction of human beings who were seriously and negatively affected by an outmoded and erroneous, not to say, superstitious, world view.

The Bible had to be re-interpreted in the light of recent theories of science, geology, biology and philosophy, particularly rationalistic philosophy. The Bible was subjected to a ruthless and philosophically-driven critique through the process of “higher criticism’.

Liberal theology (also called modernism) denies:

• Creation in favour of Darwinian evolution
• Inspiration, authority and, especially, infallibility of Scripture
• The Virgin birth
• The Deity of Christ
• The Trinity
• The Miracles of Jesus
• The bodily Resurrection of Jesus
• Original sin
• The substitutionary Atonement
• The wrath and Judgement of God
• The re-birth
• The reality of Hell
• The literal Second Coming of Christ
• That some will be eternally lost and that not everyone will be saved.

In the beginning, Christian fundamentalism might have been seen as a positive and welcome movement – although it was treated with derision by liberal academics especially with respect to Creationism and belief in miracles.

Over time, Christian fundamentalism became associated with a negative, over-literal interpretation of Scripture and this, in turn, led to Christian fundamentalism becoming essentially a negative and reactionary movement.

Features of Modern Christian Fundamentalism

• Anti-intellectualism and a reluctance to examine the

Christian faith and its sources in an historical-critical context.

• Isolationism based on a wrong view of separation from the world
• Reluctance to engage with society culturally
• A strong, rigid and simplistic approach to moral issues
• A confusion in the matter of church and state seeking to enforce Bible standards on society as a whole
• Strong, vocal and sometimes violent protests
• Opposition to liberal values

The press, media and politicians began to use the term “fundamentalist’ as a derogatory term of all evangelical Christians assuming that anyone who believed the Bible was literally true or who believed the Bible version of the origins of the universe was a fundamentalist and “guilty’ of all the above. They failed to distinguish between those who where sincerely and responsibly seeking to follow the teachings of Christ and those who abused or distorted these teachings in the name of “fundamental Christianity’.

Fundamentalism is now associated with those from all religions who hold to a literal or dogmatic interpretation of their beliefs and who are aggressively political, highly vocal, or violent in the cause of spreading and upholding their beliefs.

Interestingly, the word is also now being used of those who do not hold to religious belief at all and are fundamentally opposed to all religion. It is admitted that there are now fundamentalist atheists, such as Richard Dawkins the evolutionary biologist and author of the infamous The God Delusion, and fundamentalist secularists like the journalist and columnist Polly Toynbee, who are aggressive in their bid to rid society of all expressions of religion in public life.

The tell-tale feature and the common factor in all forms of religious fundamentalism is said to be the literal interpretation of their respective religious texts.

Two points are worth making here. First, this simplistic approach is still hide-bound by rationalistic presuppositions. Therefore, if a text contains elements that do not fit into the framework of a rationalistic worldview, then those who believe these texts must be ridiculed and exposed as irrational and unreasonable, if somewhat harmless. But if these religious believers step out into the public arena and try to influence society according to their views whether in terms of law, politics, art or education, then they are automatically termed “fundamentalists’ or “religious bigots’.

The intellectual dishonesty here is staggering. To insist and ensure that only religious people should keep their ideas, beliefs and values to themselves is nothing short of bully tactics on behalf of those who themselves very often rigidly hold to fundamental belief systems which influence how they act in the world, respond to it and shape it, and whose own beliefs are often based on unproved philosophical theories (such as rationalism).

Furthermore, there is a world of difference between those who seek to influence society according to their beliefs, which is reasonable and to be expected in a democratic society, and those who would enforce their dogma on others whether directly in terms of political control or indirectly through manipulating the political process which frequently happens even in democratic societies. Such people, perhaps, deserve the appellation, “fundamentalist’.

A second objection to the simplistic labelling of anyone taking their religious texts literally, or any way seriously at all, as a “fundamentalist’ is that this approach does not take the time to examine the religious texts themselves.

If a Christian is to be called “fundamentalist’ with all the intended negative and derogatory overtones of the word, simply because he or she takes the words of Christ in the Gospels literally, is it right to place that person in the same category as a Muslim “fundamentalist’ who takes the teaching of Muhammad and that of the Qur’an equally seriously?

The issue here is not merely that of sincerity.We ought to give the benefit of the doubt to all so-called fundamentalists and be ready to believe that they may be sincere, at least, even if they are wrong or misguided. But the issue is concerning the truth or viability of their views when tested and subjected to close scrutiny. I would suggest that, without hesitation, any rightminded person would respect the “fundamentalist’ Christian who seeks to take literally the words of Christ where he says,

“…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…” (Matthew 5:44).

Or, for that matter the words of St Paul who in Romans 11:14 & 17-19, echoes Christ’s teaching,

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….Repay no one evil for evil… do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to God’s wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. “

Surely, the same amount of respect should not be shown to those who seek to live their lives by the literal, and natural, understanding of such texts of the Qur’an as, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them…” Surah 4:89.

This shows that the indiscriminate use of the term “fundamentalist’ to apply to all people of faith who take their religious texts seriously is so superficial as to be intellectually lazy, if not downright dishonest.

These issues are being hotly debated today.With the rise of modern Muslim fundamentalism and its connection to global terror, many both from within Islam and external commentators on these events are at pains to disassociate Islamic extremism from the “true nature of Islam’. But, as we saw in last month’s article, moderate Islam has yet to rise up and prove itself to be the “true Islam’ of the Qur’an and of Islamic history.

This leaves us with the stark differences between Khalifa of Islamist ideology or the kingdom of God as taught by the Christ of the gospels. The choice is simple – you can accept or reject either one or both of these alternatives, but one thing is sure, you cannot with integrity dismiss them both as the empty claims of fanatical or fundamentalist religion.

For my views on the Norway killer Anders Breivik read my article here called “Radical Christians”

The post Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, what's the difference? appeared first on Colin Dye.

What is the future for Islam?

Moderate Islam?

Where is moderate Islam? Does it exist? If so, then where? Is it rooted in true Islam or just wishful thinking?

“Islam is a Religion of Peace”

“Muhammad is a man of Peace”

“The Qur’an is a book of Peace”

How can we know if these statements are true?

We frequently hear from politicians in the public sphere and individual Muslims and Islamic organisations, that Islam is “a religion of peace”, that it is “tolerant of other faiths and beliefs” and that it is “in favour of democracy, equal rights and freedom of speech.”
The media reports the connection between certain Islamic groups and violence, terrorism, and inequality for women. But it also claims that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, lawabiding and that there is nothing in Islam that is against the values of British society.
In public debate and media language, the distinction has emerged between “radical’ and “moderate’ Islam. Adherents of the former are called “fundamentalist’ and “Islamist’, while the latter, the moderates, are said to represent mainstream, true Islam. How can we begin to understand these distinctions and how do we know how many British Muslims are represented in each of them?

A 2001 survey revealed how Muslims in Britain viewed themselves:

15% said they were radical in that they followed a literal understanding of the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad. 70% described themselves as nominal – that is, they followed Islamic traditions and their cultural adaptations. 15% saw themselves as liberal – they were happy to follow the West and assimilate fully into British culture.

What is the situation today?

The Sunday Telegraph on 19 February 2006 carried a YouGov survey report that revealed:

40% of British Muslims identified with Islamic radicalism.

This was post 7/7, and, for whatever reason, shows that radicalism is on the increase in Britain. It may be that new immigrants are swelling the numbers of radical Islam, but it is certainly true that many British Muslims are being won over to a more Islamist position. It is reasonable to conclude that between 2001 and 2006 converts to the “radical cause’ came from the group previously identified as nominal. Liberal Muslims are perhaps less inclined towards radicalism, as they have, for all intents and purposes, broken with all traditional forms of Islam. If this is the case, then it shows that today, as in the past, moderate Muslims find it hard to withstand pressure from those who are intent on a more literal approach to Islam.
To grapple with these issues it is necessary to understand the Qur’an’s teaching and the practice of Muhammad in relation to a number of issues of concern to those who wish to uphold Western British society: jihad, democracy, freedom of religion and speech, the equality of women, and sharia.
The assertion that Islam is a “religion of peace’ draws us, in particular, to the teaching of Islam on violent jihad. It is said by many Muslim apologists that the word “Islam’ itself means “peace’. However, it is widely accepted that this is misreading of the Arabic word, and that “Islam’ means “surrender’. If there is any connection with “peace’ here, it is that “peace’ which comes from total surrender and slave-like servitude to an absolute deity as expressed in the Qur’an and Islamic traditions. The peace of Islam, therefore, is the peace and protection afforded to those who convert to Islam or in the case of Jews and Christians, those who accept a humiliating, second-class status in an Islamic society known as Dhimmitude.

The Qur’an

According to former professor of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Mark Gabriel, “There are at least 114 verses in the Qur’an that speak of love, peace and forgiveness, especially in the Surah titled “The Heifer'”(Surah 2:62, 109).’ But Gabriel goes on to explain that in the light of the later verse found in Surah 9:5 (the “sword verse’), these former “tolerant’ verses have been abrogated or annulled. This is according to the Islamic teaching of naskh in which the later revelations of the Qur’an cancelled out the former verses wherever there is a contradiction. (Islam and Terrorism by Mark Gabriel)
It is commonly understood that the earlier Meccan Surahs are more tolerant, corresponding to the earlier phase of Muhammad’s life when his teaching focussed mainly on purely religious issues such as belief in one God and the rejection of pagan idolatry. He hoped to persuade Jews to accept him as the prophet of monotheism in line with the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament, and for the Christians to accept him as the apostle of God, somewhat analogous to the apostles of the New Testament.
However, there was resistance from both groups who clearly saw that Muhammad’s teaching was at odds in major respects with the Scriptures as they knew and understood them – not least, the final and absolute authority Muhammad claimed for himself. The Medinan Surahs become more and more strident, imposing social, political and military imperatives on the Muslim community, until finally, the Qur’an became replete with teaching of hate, destruction, death and servitude to all who resisted Islam, either on the battlefield or in their personal faith. A well-respected authority on Islam, himself a radical, Sheikh Muhammad Ezzat Darwazei, counts between 500 and 700 jihad verses in the Qur’an. It is important to remember that these “sword verses’ abrogate earlier verses apparently advocating peace and tolerance. The nature of this violent teaching can be seen by the following sample:

The Medinan sword verse:

Surah 9:5 ” But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…”

Sword verse against Christians and Jews:

Surah 9:29 “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden … until they pay tribute…”

Methodology of sword verses:

Surah 47:4 ” When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…” Surah 8:38-39 ” Unbelievers … And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail Justice and faith in Allah.”

Recompense for those who die in Jihad:

Surah 4:74 “Let those who fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory, Soon shall we give him a reward of great value.”
Surah 47:4-6 “…But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost… and admit them to Paradise.”

Muhammad’s example

The life of Muhammad is sacred to Muslims who are expected to follow his example in all things. An examination of Muhammad himself shows that not only did he believe in violence but personally practiced it. During his life Muhammad sanctioned 29 actual battles and planned 39 others. He also sanctioned deaths of Jews, Christians and those who criticised or opposed him.
When one reads such Quranic advocacy of violence and death to pagans, Christians and Jews, and the offer of spiritual reward to those who carry such things out, one understands the strength of the radicals who only need to appeal to such texts, as well as the example of Muhammad himself, to pursue and impose “true Islam’.

No compulsion in religion?

What are we to make of the violent teaching found in the Qur’an in the light of the oft-quoted Surah 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion’?
As has been mentioned, we must ask whether this verse is considered mansukh (abrogated). But, even if that is denied by some Muslim apologists, the context of the verse shows that it does not promise freedom to non-Muslims, but only a measure of tolerance for a time. The following verse reads, “Allah is the Protector of those who have faith” and begs the question concerning how to treat those who reject Allah. Since they don’t have Allah’s protection, it is argued that these unbelievers do not deserve protection from Islam.

Does moderate Islam exist?

This question does not address the individual Muslim, as it is patently clear that many Muslims do not wish to acknowledge openly or to follow these “sword texts’ and that many Muslims in Britain, and across the world, are peaceful and law-abiding. But the issue is: does a correct understanding of the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad as we know it ultimately require that all Muslims believe and support such teaching?

Responses to “sword’ passages

When individual Muslims are questioned about the “violence’ in the teaching of the Qur’an and in the example of Muhammad himself they usually respond in one of the following ways: Affirmation: As we have seen, we could expect 40% of British Muslims to affirm all or some Quranic teaching on violence. Denial: Some out of ignorance, wishful thinking, or deceit, deny that these verses are actually in the Qur’an.
Interpretation: Some teach that these verses were historical, situational and geographical, only applying to 7th century Arabia and proximate nations.
The key question is: What is the basis for a moderate interpretation of these verses advocating and commanding violence against non-Muslims?

Islamic tradition

Some deny that the “sword verses’ ever had any place in historic, mainstream Islam, and that centuries of Islamic tradition and authoritative teaching proves that this is the case. They claim that Western ignorance and prejudice perpetuates misinterpretation of these texts. But, these same people do not seem to be able to provide any convincing evidence of this “vast body of Muslim opinion’ within mainstream and historic Islamic tradition.

Islamic reformation

Some seek to reform Islam from within, trying to find a more acceptable and modern approach to it in keeping with Western ideals of freedom and tolerance. But the difficulty here is one of authority. Who has the authority to reject Quranic texts or reinterpret them? Surely to do so would be to deny the very basis of Islam and thus be a denial of Islam itself.

Moderate Islam and Sufism

Sufism is often cited as an example of moderate Islam. Sufism is characterised by “inner piety’ and, as “a religion of the heart’, is said not to advocate violence or political extremism. However, while it is true that Sufis draw their beliefs and inspiration from Mohammad himself, Sufi mysticism, with its quest for union with the divine, is regarded by its critics either as fundamentally un-Islamic or a sectarian departure from the purity of Islam. This is borne out by the fact that Sufis only officially comprise 3-4% of modern day Islam, although it is claimed that their influence is considerable both among Sunnis and Shi’ites.
Ruth Kelly recently gave support to the moderation of Sufism when she rejected the hitherto welcome role of the Muslim Council of Britain as the official voice of Islam in Britain. She was the main speaker at the launch of the Sufi Muslim Council in the House of Commons on 19th July 2006. But the problem is that Sufis do not and cannot speak for Islam in general. It is more influential as a religious tendency within Islam than it is as an official representative of Islam itself.
The Sufi Muslim Council claims that 80% of British Muslims are from a Sufi tradition (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1824131,00.html ). That claim is hard to reconcile with the YouGov findings that 40% of British Muslims are sympathetic to Islamist ideals. The contradiction can be resolved in one of two ways. First, Sufism is not, in the final analysis, capable of asserting its “moderation’ on the rest of Islam. Or, second, Sufism is not essentially moderate after all. The history of Sufi groups, such as of Naqshbandi, Qadiri and Sanusyia, reveals clear signs of a lack of moderation.

The future of “moderate Islam’

The problem with finding and promoting moderation within Islam is that the most “natural’ reading of Islamic texts, as well as much influential historical interpretation of these, provides fuel for the radicals. Considerable fear is generated by the radicals who threaten many would-be moderates with the charge of apostasy and its harsh consequences which, very often, means death. Muslim solidarity, a strong force in its own right, is exploited by radicals who point to social injustice, the plight of the Palestinians, racism and the cultural estrangement of Muslims, in a bid to radicalise their fellow Muslims. This is how British Muslim youth are being successfully recruited to Islamism in colleges and universities, as a former radical, Ed Husain shows in his autobiography The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left.
Perhaps the real issue in all this is not discussion about “moderate’ or “radical’ Muslims, but the nature of Islam itself. Until this is explored and addressed, it seems the situation is not set to improve. That there are many moderate Muslims, there can be no doubt, but as to the existence of historical, mainstream moderate Islam – where’s the evidence?

The post Is there a moderate Islam? appeared first on Colin Dye.