Islamic Fundamentalism

to the pristine fundamentals of the faith, for instance, those defined by Ibn Taimiya in the fourteenth century. This latter aim is still the driving force behind the Salafia and Wahabiya movements. Now the aim of the second form of the Islamic fundamentalism that of Ibn Taimya is to put an end to additions and innovations (bid’a) in religious matters and to replace them with the Sunnah, the original form of the Islamic Shariah. The aim of the other form of fundamentalism is to put an end to non-Islamic political setup and replace that with an Islamic political setup. Both the forms of fundamentalism are totally different from one another. The sphere of the struggle against innovation (bid’a) is confined only to matters of belief and worship. Violence does not, of necessity, accompany movements of this nature. Furthermore, it is aimed at and concerned with the internal reform of Muslims. Thus, in the relevant activities, there is no possibility of coming into conflict with non-Muslims. But so far as fundamentalism of the other kind is concerned, it has been directed from the very outset against political rulers, and whether the inevitable confrontations have been with Muslim or non-Muslim rulers, by its very nature such a movement has demanded the use of violence. This is where the principle of jihad has been distorted and bent to political ends. It must be stressed that the word “jihad” has nowhere been used in the Quran to mean the waging of war. The Quran is imbued with the spirit of peace and tolerance. Its culture is not that of war but of mercy.