What is ‘fundamentalism’ and why is it so widespread? ‘Fundamentalism’ is different from violent extremism and there is no necessary connection between the two, hence it is critical to treat fundamentalism on its own merits without confusing it with violence. Religious fundamentalism has been described in various terms and jargon; however, the most compelling description of fundamentalism when we consider the topics of knowledge production and social practice is “the virtual absence of historical scholarship, liberty and rationality”. In the fundamentalist worldview, history ceases to exist. Fundamentalists are by no means inclined towards force but they do deny the call for reform and change (instead arguing for a revival or restoration of the ‘Golden Age’), arguing that religion is unchangeable hence any interference by human beings through manipulative means of interpretation is an adulteration of the purity of faith. In one clear move human reason is subordinated under an imagined social reality, which disregards historicity and is trapped by rigidity. Fundamentalism has a worldview of perpetual dystopia, that the ‘Golden Age’ of faith is gone and we must strive backwards to recreate the conditions of that time. But with the passage of time and throughout history, great shifts in our thinking occur such as the emergence of modern science, the social sciences and the emphasis on empirical, naturalistic explanations of the world, all of which are readily ignored by the fundamentalist. “Islam is for all time,” hence why the need for human interference in interpretation? But this notion is precisely undermined by new and critical Muslim intellectuals. Hassan Hanafi, an Egyptian philosopher, throughout his work argues that there is not, cannot be and has never been a uniform interpretation of religious scripture. Human interpretation is essentially a pluralistic endeavour. As AbdolKarim Soroush points out: “All understanding assumes suppositions and entails ‘categorisation’ that is subsuming the particular under universal categories and concepts. Understanding religion is no exception. It is preceded by certain assumptions and principles, which are necessary conditions for its intelligibility and interpretation.” Soroush, a prominent Iranian philosopher, undermined Iran’s clerical authority over religious interpretation by suggesting his theory of ‘Contraction and Expansion of Religious Knowledge’. The basic premise of the theory is that religion is divine and perfect, but religious knowledge is by no means perfect or divine; the interpreter is always fallible, and interpretation by its very nature, due to human fallibility, always pluralistic. In this theory, Soroush realises there are several crucial points to establish, such as the fact that human reason is capable of being trusted and should be used (hence his claims of initiating a neo-Mu’tazilite project), all knowledge is historicised (influenced by historical conditions) and never ahistorical, and human beings have always engaged actively with religious texts, at times impressing their own preconceptions onto these texts. Assigning mere human beings infallibility just because of the antiquated value of their views is dangerous. This does not by any means devalue great pieces of literature, art or philosophy, but enhances and humanises our experience vis-à-vis the piece in question. It provides a three-dimensional portrait, giving us insight into the genesis of the creation, and can open new avenues for understanding. Religion is eternal but no single religious interpretation is final; the last religion is here but the last understanding of religion has not arrived. Religious knowledge is in continuous flux. We can have general moral values and principles, which can stay constant, but how we apply them in terms of politics, means that institutions must continually change to keep pace with social developments. Indeed, we must remember the distinction (from the Islamic legal tradition) between the two main categories of legal rulings (ahkam): ibadat (ritual/spiritual acts) and mu’amalat (social/contractual acts). When we speak of change and reform in the religious context, it has nothing to do with beliefs and the main pillars of Islam but the social, political, legal and ethical applications of the faith. Legal and political fundamentalists will constantly speak of a ‘shariah’ system and Caliphate, ignoring the conflicting opinions and diversity within Islam. They completely ignore the distinction between religion and religious knowledge, and do not even think of the historical contexts in which Islamic law has operated. By imposing narrow limits and constructs over the interpretation of religion, we ignore the other precious dimensions. Religion is not only legal; it is ethical, moral, spiritual and experiential as well. The divine in Pakistan is stripped of ethics, spirituality, philosophy, and culture and only fixated on doctrine and law. Ziauddin Sardar captures this eloquently, when he said in a recent interview: “Islam in Pakistan, I am afraid, has ceased to be a religion and a worldview; it has become an obsession, a pathology. It has been drained of all ethics and has become a mechanism for oppression and injustice.” Fundamentalists not only manipulate our literary heritage but our wider culture and dupe us into believing that without accepting their narrow moralisms and religious teaching, we as a society are hopelessly devoid of any serious civilisation. Fundamentalists instead of living with uncertainty, suck the life out of intellectual pursuit by hammering out formulaic and sterile pamphlets about ‘Science in the Quran’ and other such erroneous attempts. These are reductive attempts aimed at propaganda, simultaneously discrediting the Islamic traditions and reinforcing the stereotype that Muslims cannot rationally engage in philosophical debate. This activity also stretches the philosophical and linguistic content of the Muslim traditions to the breaking point and such endeavours are ‘feel-good confidence boosting’ exercises for those insecure in their faith and threatened by outside intellectual influences. Reading the ‘big bang theory’ into the Quran, like some of these pamphlets do, is a trivialisation of faith. It is this ‘pamphlet Islam’ that Omid Safi describes as being fostered by fundamentalist thinking: “I think Muslims are in imminent danger — if we are not there already — of succumbing to ‘pamphlet Islam’, the fallacy of thinking that complex issues can be handled in four or six glossy pages.” Fundamentalism perhaps rests on a single assumption — that God is on their side and they have complete and ‘pure’ access to religious knowledge. The writer is a freelance columnist. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AhmadAliKhalid and can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com