Faced with the modern world, fundamentalism takes a seemingly opposite position. Starting from the idea that the Islamic community can only be governed by Muslims, its seeks to gain power by political means. Proponents of this ideology hope to further Islam: firstly, by ensuring the practice of religion in the countries they control; and secondly, by establishing in the world a kind of 'bridgehead' for the defense of the interests of Muslims wherever they are and prepare for the gradual expansion of Islam. Faced with the ambiguity and the excesses of the politics of integration, the fundamentalist idea is appealing to good Muslims through the independence it promises them, since they would be governed by themselves, not by others.
A closer look reveals the illusory nature of this apparent advantage. For fundamentalism to match its declared aim, it would need to have its supporters not being themselves corrupted - more or less consciously - by the anti-traditional conceptions [and mentality] of the modern world.
At the outset, the conquest of power implies today that we are organizing ourselves in [kind of political] parties and that we adopt the methods of the arena of secular politics, methods which are the antithesis of Islamic universality. In case of victory, it's even worse. How to preserve the integrity of Islam in the management of a modern state, may it be proclaimed 'Islamic' or not? In all areas is there will be stalemate and contradiction.
First, there is no state without territory. One of the tenets of modern polity is the maintenance of 'territorial integrity' which generates countless conflicts, as petty as dangerous. No longer will the 'rights of Heaven' be preserved, not even those of Earth, but those arising from absurd and arbitrary territorial divisions, which is particularly obvious when these have been established by colonization. An Islamic state is essentially a universal state, that is to say, a state without borders. Conversely, a state whose territory is defined by borders cannot claim to be an Islamic state.
Moreover, what to say of the idea of nation, concerning the divisions and passions which are engendered by it, so that it is one of the worst instruments of contemporary subversion. Let us simply quote here the words of a saintly man from our era who said: ”At the very moment when the Mahdi will be confirmed in his mission in front of the Kaaba in Mecca, the states and regimes of the Islamic world will collapse like houses of cards.”…
1: i.e. an opposite position toward modern/ postmodern society and culture. ↩
2: in the countries of the West. ↩
3: of establishing some sort of ”Islamic state”. ↩
4: see for example: Modernism And Postmodern Thought, by OmarKN (based on: Traditional Islam In The Modern World; Seyyed H Nasr) ↩
- Why An Islamic State Is Not Feasible Today various authors
- Regarding the Idea of An (Islamic) Nationstate Sh A H Murad
The Illusions Of Fundamentalism, quoted from:
Ni Intégrisme, Ni Intégration,