Book Review-II

Islamic Fundamentalism versus Modern Rationalism

Islamic Fundamentalism versus Modern Rationalism‘Enemy in the Mirror’

Roxanne L.Euben, Oxford University Press, 1999, Pages 238, Price:Rs 595.00  
by Colonel (Retd) Ghulam Sarwar

Roxanne L. Euben's well‑researched study: "Enemy in the Mirror", begins as an enquiry into the nature of fundamentalism and the way it has evolved in three great Faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also, it reflects the nexus of the political and intellectual interests or preoccupations. In the process, the first interest is sparked by a paradox in contemporary politics. It is rightly questioned why secular, literal democracies such as the United States have started witnessing sharply declining rates of voter turn‑out and increasing alienation from politics, while at the same time, religio‑political movements are galvanizing peoples into extraordinary attempts to make the political world.

With these introductory remarks, the author sets out to underscore parameters of fundamentalism. In the process, she determines criteria by which such interpretations are authorized. The term "fundamentalism” captures aspects of, for example, the way some American conservatives claim a monopoly of interpretation on such ostensibly secular texts as the American constitution. As things stand, this understanding runs so counter to the conventional religious connotations of fundamentalism as to empty it of meaning. However, it allows for the distinct possibility that there are secular as well as religious fundamentalists and the distinction between the two is not as divergent as it initially seems.

The focus of the book then shifts to Western academia's reaction to Islamic fundamentalism and the way they have tried to define it over the years, either by adopting a modern rationalist approach or simply trying to make it fit in the mould of Christian fundamentalism paradigm. The author then moves to evaluate the prevalent theories of Islamic fundamentalism and presents a renowned Egyptian scholar, Syed Qutb, as a case study. She takes to this course in an effort to arrive at a definition of Islamic fundamentalism and all that goes in the making of it from a Muslim perspective. She maintains that Syed Qutb's contribution offers a highly influential picture of the Islamic world view. To her, Qutb's text is not definitive but illustrative of the critique of post Enlightenment modernity and epistemology in the Islamic political thought. Continuing her arguments, she says that Qutb's continuing influence over the ideas and actions of contemporary Islamists makes his text particularly illuminating for any attempt to understand the movement's meaning. The power of the fundamentalist’s ideas, as enunciated by Syed Qutb, is certainly related to the political, cultural and economic conditions. His is a well‑documented empirical study of fundamentalism and it portrays a critical, utopianist and revolutionary movement.

            Then, the author simultaneously approaches Qutb and Imam Khomeini and highlights continuities and unifying patterns that have interesting implications for larger arguments regarding Qutb's critique of modernity and of rationalism in particular. Syed Qutb shares with Khomeini, for example, a critique of all forms of modern, secular authority as corrupt and of obedience of such authority as idolatry , a focus on sovereignty as the means by which to fulfill God's will on Earth. The list of commonalities and differences is very large, yet the glimpse of these as enumerated above suggests a rough convergence of Islamic fundamentalist ideas around a rejection of modern forms of sovereignty. The echoes between Syed Qutb's and Imam Khomeini's rejection of modern forms of sovereignty and emphasis on the limits of human reason means that Qutb's fundamentalism projects shares with other Islamists – Sunni’s and Shiias, Arabs and non‑Arabs, a critique of a vision of modernists that embodies and expresses the supremacy of rationalist ways of knowing and mastering the world. Convergence of these fundamentalist ideas means that Sunni and Shiite varieties of fundamental thoughts can be understood as engaged in a common critique of rationalist epistemology.

To conclude: This study intelligent1y offers ways to interpret Islamic fundamentalism and its many manifestations. This study logically proves that there is no prospect of clash between Islam and the West. Euben is convinced that the subject needs a detached and objective analysis and scrutiny. Sharp, unequivocal and convincing as this study is, it is hoped that it will greatly help in dispelling doubts that exist among the Western academics with regard to the true connotation of Islamic fundamentalism. The Western scholars must now look beyond the rationalists—modern planks that have only obscured the reading of Islam in a post cold‑war world.n