But what does “fundamentalist” really mean? According to a common definition it denotes an adherent to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature).

According to Wikipedia,

“”Islamic fundamentalism” is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law.” [source]

So in other words, an “Islamic fundamentalist” (also known as an “Islamic extremist”) is an “Islamist” which is basically means a Muslim who wants Islamic rule, something any Muslim wants.

Interestingly, “Fundamentalist” is originally a Christian term

Bernard Lewis, a British-American historian, has had this to say against it (the term):

“The use of this term is established and must be accepted, but it remains unfortunate and can be misleading. “Fundamentalist” is a Christian term. It seems to have come into use in the early years of this century, and denotes certain Protestant churches and organizations, more particularly those that maintain the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Bible. In this they oppose the liberal and modernist theologians, who tend to a more critical, historical view of Scripture. Among Muslim theologians there is as yet no such liberal or modernist approach to the Qur’an, and all Muslims, in their attitude to the text of the Qur’an, are in principle at least fundamentalists. Where the so-called Muslim fundamentalists differ from other Muslims and indeed from Christian fundamentalists is in their scholasticism and their legalism. They base themselves not only on the Qur’an, but also on the Traditions of the Prophet, and on the corpus of transmitted theological and legal learning.” [Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p.117, n.3.]

Fundamentalist Muslims vs. (government approved) Moderate Muslims

According to the current usage of the word (Muslim) Fundamentalist we understand that the labelling of non-apologetic Muslims as “Fundamentalists” and “Islamists” and the labelling of apologetics and defeatists as “Moderates” is just another part of the Kuffar’s propaganda strategy and an update of the old Emperialistic strategy of “Divide and Conquer”! When the Muslims begin to accept the ridiculous idea of “Moderate Muslims” being “good” and “Fundamentalist Muslims” being “bad” the next step is to strive to be labelled as a “Moderate”.

We have to understand that there is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim. What is meant by Moderate Muslim is in reality a “Secular Muslim” – someone who will accept “Democracy” as superior to “Shari’a”.

We as Muslims cannot afford to be naïve anymore. There is a war going on. Not a “War on Terror” but a “War Between Truth and Falsehood”. The battlefield is not just the deserts of Iraq or the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan. The war is taking place in the media on the Internet and in schools and universities, the weapons being words, thoughts and ideas.

Fundamentals
Coming back to the the common definition of fundamentalist, “an adherent to a set of basic principles…” I think what is important to understand is that being a Fundamentalist is a good thing – as long as the fundamentals are true! As Muslims we know that our fundamentals are true, being revealed by Allah Almighty to our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so we should hold our heads high if someone labels us Fundamentalists, eventhough the name Allah has given to us is Muslimun.

Al-hamdulillahi was-salatu was-salamu ‘ala Sayyidina Muhammadin wa ‘ala Alihi wa Sahbihi ajma’in

As-salamu ‘alaykum,

In recent days I have taken part in several discussions on the Internet regarding the so-called “Amman Message”. A description of the Amman Message – taken from the front page of its official website (my underlining):

The Amman Message started as a detailed statement released the eve of the 27th of Ramadan 1425 AH / 9th November 2004 CE by H.M. King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein in Amman, Jordan. It sought to declare what Islam is and what it is not, and what actions represent it and what actions do not. Its goal was to clarify to the modern world the true nature of Islam and the nature of true Islam.

In order to give this statement more religious authority, H.M. King Abdullah II then sent the following three questions to 24 of the most senior religious scholars from all around the world representing all the branches and schools of Islam: (1) Who is a Muslim? (2) Is it permissible to declare someone an apostate (takfir)? (3) Who has the right to undertake issuing fatwas (legal rulings)?

Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world’s leading Islamic scholars ‘Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the ‘Three Points of the Amman Message’):

1. They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.
2. Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.
3. Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.

I was reading a biography on Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) some days ago and as often before reading about the well-known trials he went through moved me…

When reading about the “Amman Message” on their website and in the online discussions I was reminded of some quotes from that biography:

»’Ali ibn al-Madani said about him, “Allah honoured and strengthened this Religion with as-Siddiq o­n the day of Apostasy, and with Ahmad on the day of the trial (al-Mihna).”«

»’Abbas al-Duri said: I heard Ja’far al-Anbari say, “When Ahmad was taken off to al-Ma’mun I heard of it, so I crossed the Euphrates and came to him, and found him sitting in a small room. I greeted him with salam and he said, ‘O Aba Ja’far, you have troubled yourself.’ So I said, ‘Today you are a head whom the people follow, So, by Allah, if you consent to the saying that the Qur’an is created, then the rest of the people will consent to it. But if you refuse, then many people will refuse, and even if the man does not kill you then you will still die, and death is certain. So fear Allah and do not consent.’«

»Hanbal said, “Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ahmad] said, ‘I did not see anyone, along with his young age and knowledge, who better stood firm for Allah’s sake than Muhammad ibn Nuh. I hope that his actions were sealed with good. o­ne day he said to me, ‘O Aba ‘Abdillah — for Allah, for Allah. You are not the same as me, you are a man who is followed. The people stretch their necks towards you to see what you will do. So fear Allah, and be firm for Allah’s sake,’ or the like of it.«

Imam Ahmad refused to conform to the false belief of the Qur’an being created and was tortured (whipped almost to death).

In my humble view the modernist movement and the Kuffar’s “War on Terror” strategy of dividing the Muslims into “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims” (good Muslims being those who acknowledge democracy as being valid and agree to label those Muslims as extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists, who do not comply with the Western agenda – bad Muslims being everyone else) is the Mihna (or trial) of this Age.

The Amman Message is just another way of dividing the Muslims. How can we accept people who curse the Companions and the Mothers of the Believers (radiya Allahu ‘anhum ajma’in) and give them the stamp of approval? True, some of the Shi’a are not Kuffar (like those Zaydis who still follow the official stances of their school regarding the companions etc.), but in the past I have sat with Shi’a Ithna’ Ashariyya (Twelvers) “behind closed doors” and I know what is said there. Their scholars and common folk alike curse the Companions and declare the majority of them apostates and their disgusting accusations against as-Siddiqa ‘Aisha (radiya Allahu ‘anha) are well-known. They declare Sunnis non-Believers (their ‘aqida books say that the Shi’a are Mu’minun and Muslimun while the Sunnis are only Muslimun (meaning they perform acts of Islam but have no Iman, as (in their view) Iman is not correct without their (false) belief in the infallibility of the Imams etc).

Not only are the Twelvers mentioned in the Amman Message (and Twelvers are even Mu’tazilites too as their have added a bid’a to their bid’a), even the Ibadhis of Oman (who are a Khawarij sect with Jahmi/Mu’tazili bid’a views added to their bid’a) are validated in it. I have read fatwas from traditional Sunni scholars declaring prayer behind an Ibadhi invalid, so how can they now be okayed just like that?

As was mentioned in one of the discussions, the Qadianis do say “La ilaha illa Allah Muhammadun Rasulullah” but then cancel it out with their kufr belief in a false prophet (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad). And the list goes on.

I am not suggesting that the scholars should go on a Takfir rampage but I urge them and us to ask Allah (‘azza wa jall) to bestow ‘izza on us and give us the strength the stand firm on the Haqq despite of the hatred of the disbelievers and “political correct” Modernists. I also urge the apologetics amongst the ranks of the Muslims to read books like “The Islamic Conquest of Syria” [you can buy it here] to learn how the Sahaba and the Tabi’un dealt with the disbelievers and apostates and how Islamic rule was solidified in the Sham. The Salaf of this Umma (yes I used the S word) stood firm against the deviant sects and the scholars of hadith were known to use expressions like “he is a dirty Rafidi” etc.

Imam Malik (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) said,

»How evil are the people of innovation, we do no give them salam.«

Imam al-Hasan al-Basri (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) said:

»Do not sit with the people of innovated beliefs, do not debate with them and do not listen to them.«

So if giving them salam, debating with them and listening to them is wrong, how can we make declarations that (in reality) are stamps of approval of them?

I will stop here as I have made my point, insha’Allah.

Wa salla Allahu wa sallam wa barik ‘ala Sayyidina Muhammadin wa ‘ala Alihi wa Sahbihi ajma’in