Relationship between Mahdawiyyah, Fundamentalism, and Modernism
In his survey about contemporary intellectual movements in the Islamic world in the 9th article of his book, “The Need for a sacred Science,” Dr. Nasr explains that two intellectual approaches have been influential in the Islamic world for the past 1/5 centuries.
One has been Fundamental Religious Reformism, and the other Modernism. He added a third movement, Mahdism, in his interview with Voices Across Boundaries magazine.
About Fundamentalism and Modernism, he states: Two calls from the Islamic world have been echoed more than others in the past 1/5 centuries, and could easily have been heard in the West. One call has been for fundamental religious reformists and the other for modernists. The first one includes the Wahabi and Salafi Schools which are resistant to Westerners and want to generalize Islam all over the world, and the second is for modernists who have supported science and technology since the early 19th century.
In his interview with Wanda Raumer Taylor, the editor in chief of Voices Across Boundaries, Nasr also said that Muslims have tended towards three theories about their state of crisis and backwater as compared to the West:
This great defeat is a sign of the end of the world and of Imam Mahdi’s appearance.
Muslims haven’t properly obeyed Islamic principles and must return to true Islam and live by its rules.
The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) must match himself with the modern world to overcome its privilege.
Nasr believes that these interpretations led to three intellectual movements:
Mahdism or Messianic movements
Fundamentalism like Wahabism in Saudi Arabia
Modernism, like the Young Turks or Arabic Liberalism. These thoughts were once attractive in the 19th and early 20th century and after World War II which, in the second instance, led to Mahdism, Modernism and Fundamentalism.
Unfortunately, the term ‘Fundamentalism’ has been applied by Easterners, too. The term was first applied by Westerners when describing Christian Fundamentalism but was subsequently taken up by every Islamic movement that mooted return to the Islamic religion, and opposition to certain influences of the West.
Nowadays, the term Islamic Fundamentalism has an inappropriate meaning to the point of being interpreted with an insulting inference in political literature, so Traditionalists have used this term in an attempt to separate Traditionalism from any insulting connotations.
Dr. Nasr considers Fundamentalism a consequence and natural outcome of Modernism and a reaction against Intellectual Extremism and says: Many existing movements in the Islamic world are either in favor of Modernism or against it, the second are called Fundamentalist; Fundamentalism is the other side of the coin to Modernism.
We don’t have Fundamentalism during the Seljukian or Safavid time. The Fundamentalism phenomenon is a reaction against modernism yet there are a considerable number of points where both of them are similar in many aspects. The first point of similarity is that they don’t criticize technology and modern science, but rather they swallow it like a whale at sea swallows water; the second point is that both of them don’t consider Islamic art and Islamic traditional civilization at all and the third point is that both of them are enemies of the spiritual, internal aspect of Islam. So if we retain the force of Sufism, it will have an impact on ordering equilibrium in the Islamic world.
He believes that Traditionalism believes in command and mystical interpretation of religion and doesn’t have a superficial look at religious tenets, so while Traditionalism and Fundamentalism are faithful to the Islamic holy text like the Qur’an and Hadiths, the Traditionalists, like Nasr, accuse the Fundamentalist interpretation of Qur’an and Hadiths as an ideological and instrumental application, and interpret verses and traditions for their desire and political goals. In his book, Traditional Islam in Modern world, Nasr says:
A common aspect of Traditionalism and Fundamentalism is that both of them accept Qur’an and Hadiths, and place emphasis on religion yet they have many differences. As has been previously elaborated, traditions help people grasp the genuine meaning of holy verses and sacred texts in order to understand with wise interpretation;
some Fundamentalist movements apply verses of Qur’an and interpret them as a license according to their own goals, which is often incompatible and alien to the correct interpretation of the Qur’an. Regarding the shar’iah, the genuine traditions (sunnah) – contrary to many common Fundamentalist schools not inspired by divine authority but rather implementing external pressure based on fear of human totalitarianism – emphasizes belief, and harmony between the religious commands and prioritize a balanced judgment that is meant to complete the deficiencies of human world.
Some critics of Traditionalism believe that the difference between Fundamentalism and Traditionalism is too small a claim, and they believe, contrary to Nasr, that Fundamentalism, like Traditionalism, also emphasizes inner interest and interpretation of religious text. Mohammad Legenhausen, one of the critics of Traditionalism, says:
Genuine scholars, whether they are Fundamentalist or Traditionalist, consider interpreting Tradition as interpreting the Qur’an and Hadiths. Of course, some people write public-orientated works, and prefer writing inaccurately, even though this is not a distinguishing difference between Traditionalism and Fundamentalism.
Regarding religious Fundamentalism, like Traditionalism, it emphasizes the importance of inner development and a genuine approach towards religion, and though not identical, shares some similarities to Traditionalism, albeit with a more severe attitude. On the other hand, some Fundamentalists, like some of the honorable Traditionalists, have always had a relaxed attitude in regards to the administration of religion.
It is worth emphasizing that some of Nasr’s tripartite analysis may be considered holistically leading to an apocalyptic belief that we have reached the end of the world, and that there is a necessity to return to the Islamic prophetic principles present at the starting point of Islam.
Dr. Nasr believes that the first analysis is the real cause for tendencies to believe in the Mahdi and Jesus. We have to say that this is not the real cause as historical experience proves that some individuals claimed to be the Mahdi and rendered their activities into a politically deviated movement. They misused the belief for the fulfillment of their own interests and to accommodate the situation for their own benefit.
Accordingly, Mahdism and/or messianism became a tool in their hands to assign legitimacy to themselves and polish over the cracks in their faked authenticity. All this was meant to mobilize the masses and attract as many devotees as possible. Thus, we assume that Mahdism can serve as a natural outcome of the first analysis, and belief in the people who claim Mahdism, but it is not applicable to the leaders of the Mahdism movements as Mahdism was not their only belief, and they were often fully aware of their lies and lack of validity.
Nonetheless, they knew that culture and religious literature allowed promotion of the coming peacemaker to reform the public; they could, thus, apply this religious concept to achieve their own goals. The fake Mahdist movements, thus, did not come into being because of the claims of Mahdism which believes in the end of the world, or because the Muslims accepted failure and shame when compared to the West; it was political enmities and worldly desires and whims which were the main fields of Mahdism.
It is necessary to note the Nasr’s Mahdism is not in opposition to the Mahdism argument in Islamic thought, but his purpose was to highlight use of Mahdism as a tool to achieve political power or to create a political movement; the people who have an excessive Mahdism outlook legitimized their political actions and power-seeking, and knew Mahdism as an ideological tool with which to apply their desires. From the time of Kisaniye up till now this is adequate proof – it has been a tool throughout history – political activities act under the guise of Mahdism and the claim of Mahdism exhibits the Mahdism concept, like its use as a tool in historical times, illustrating the difference between Mahdism and the Mahdism discussion.
المرتجی
Add comment