Islamic fundamentalists: who are they?

I usually buy the Independent, but admit to glossing over their 'star' columnist, Johann Hari. The reason is because he often writes nonsense like this (via Harry's Place):

Does anybody need greater evidence that these Islamic fundamentalists despise Muslims who choose to live in free societies, and they would enslave Muslims everywhere if they were given the opportunity? Nor is this tit-for-tat revenge for deaths in Iraq: very similar jihadist plots have been foiled in France and Germany, countries that opposed the invasion. Anybody who doubted that the fight against Islamic fundamentalism – a murderous totalitarian ideology – was always our fight should know better now.

None of this useful or conducive to any sort of discussion. What, for example, is "Islamic fundamentalism"? "Fundamentalism" is a global human phenomenon (if we choose to make it one) that has been the subject of many discussions and debates, and even a detailed study, but we're not necessarily any closer to knowing what "it" is. On closer inspection we might even find that anyone who even remotely believes in a "public" role for "Islam" (which will happen anywhere there are Muslims) might be labelled a "fundamentalist". Sometimes it is suggested that the use of violence is one of the defining features of "fundamentalism". But if that was the case, then all liberal democracies who have engaged in the use of violence (as opposed to a pacificist stance) -- and more often than not this use of violence has been aggressive rather than defensive -- must also be "fundamentalists". This must mean Blair is also a "fundamentalist" for his esposual of violence to aid the Holy Trinity of Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights and the spread of Progress. What good does this label do in an Islamic context (as opposed to its origins in debates between Christians in the US)? Perhaps there can be some use through analogy. I don't deny that identifying "fundamentalism" might have uses in Muslim settings, but am suggesting it needs to be done with caution and sagcity instead of tabloid journalism. However, suggesting that "Islamic fundamentalism" is "a murderous totalitarian ideology" is not useful at all, because we have not even established what "it" is, let alone consider opposing differing views amongst "Islamic fundamentalists".

Hari might have realised these problems so promptly updated his post on his own blog to create a "civil war" between "democratic Muslims" and "Wahhabi fundamentalists" (as opposed other kinds of fundamentalists?):

This is not a fight between Muslims and the rest of us. It is a civil war within Islam, between democratic Muslims and Wahhabi fundamentalists who want to enslave or kill them.

Why do so many commentators in the English-speaking media constantly talk of "civil war" when it comes to discussing current affairs involving Muslims? For example, the impending "civil war" between Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq is on the lips of any number of newspaper columnists and 'experts' on television (forgetting that in Iraq tribal divisions cut across sectarian divides). In any case, a civil war is an internal conflict in the context of a nation-state. Muslims are spread far and wide across so many different nations, which pursue their own interests. So there can't be a "civil war", technically speaking. And if there is a conflict that pits "extremists" against all other Muslims, this is hardly new to Muslim history.

As for whether or not they are "Wahhabis", this only suggests that Hari has not checked any historical sources before making this claim. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the historical Wahhabis (who were a pre-modern movement, I should add), I am doubtful as to whether or not any group or sect calls themselves "Wahhabis" today and I am doubtful that identifying "Wahhabi fundamentalism" is the solution to anything.

Comments

[haroon]

Salam,

Excellent, as always. You raised an intriguing point re: the desire for civil war. First, we were being told over and over that such and such non-scholar mediocrity was in fact the Muslim world's Martin Luther; apparently, Luther has done his damage.

Now, we have reached the stage of the 30-Years War and other such sectarian violence. Perhaps it makes sense. First they wanted us to find a Luther, now they want us to tear ourselves apart, Muslim Protestants vs. Muslim Catholics. (Who are "they"? "They" are those whose best solution is advocating civil war; if indeed these attacks are the hallmark of a civil war -- which targets non-Muslims as well -- then what bright mind advocates accelerating it?)

[thabet]

wa'alaykum salaam

Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that "fundamentalism" is a mentality, rather than any specific creed or doctrine, one that is unable to look beyond their own narrow view of the world.

As for the "civil war" ramblings, what is more annoying is the constant talk of "Reformation" that "Islam needs", when in fact "The Reformation" European- Christian history was quite, if not very, violent.