What is the difference between modernism and fundamentalism

Keywords: anti-evolutionism , Auburn Affirmation , Harry Emerson Fosdick , fundamentalism , inerrancy , liberalism , J.

Bradley J. Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase.

Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.

All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. To this end, they stressed ethics rather than eschatology; social reform rather than confessional debate; symbolic and allegorical interpretations of the Bible rather than more literal readings. The s fundamentalists rightly recognized that Christian modernism was a slippery slope to humanism, secularism, atheism, and nihilism.

Half a century later, starting in the late s, the modernist Mainline Protestant denominations imploded. They had eliminated nearly everything from religion except ethics, and then adopted mainstream secular ethics, and so had nothing distinctive to offer anyone. It retreated into a marginal subculture for many decades. A second wave of fundamentalism emerged in the s , as the innovative memetic core of one of the two great countercultures. This was another period of visible shakiness in the systematic mode of meaningness.

It was also a time of rapid cultural globalization; the mass media suddenly exposed Americans to unfamiliar images and ideas from afar. Fundamentalism again offered a bulwark of certainty against the disintegration of meaning.

Islamic fundamentalism has a similar history. Although it has roots in s Wahhabism, the movement began only in the early 20th century, and remained mainly marginal until the s, when it formed the innovative memetic core of the Islamist counterculture.

The same pattern holds true for Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist fundamentalisms. Fundamentalism describes itself as traditional and anti-modern. This is inaccurate. Genuine traditions have no defense against modernity.

Why should anyone do that? Choice is great! And sushi is better than boiled taro. How do we know? Because it says so here in Leviticus The attempt to defend tradition can be noble; tradition is often profoundly good in ways modernity can never be. And once you have that, much of what is good about tradition is lost. This is currently easier to see in Islamic than in Christian fundamentalism. That is one of its main attractions: it can explain itself, where traditional Islam cannot. Many consider fundamentalism the forward-looking, global, intellectually coherent religion that makes sense of everyday life and of world politics.

Traditional culture is a colorful muddle of customary, local beliefs and practices. Fundamentalism rejects cultural specificity in favor of abstract universalism. There can only be One Ultimate Truth, which must be the same everywhere, so women everywhere must wear the same clothes. Moreover, some fundamentalist leaders were at such an advanced stage of intellectual power that they should be considered wholly distinct from the traditional religious leaders.

But what we are concerned with is specific modernism. Now we must see what is the meaning of specific modernism and its difference with Islamic traditionalism and political Islam. It is in that perspective that modernists separate themselves from traditionalists and in continuation of this distinct attitude two branches sprung up from the Islamic tree which as they grow and thickened they grew further separate and conflicting.

At this juncture I do not have ample time to give a detailed description on the difference between political Islam and Islamic modernism, but will try to briefly shed light on that topic. As I said until years ago the Muslims were neither aware of the rapid developments in the world nor their own status. As a result, they did not feel they were responsible against these developments. But from the time that the West started its cultural, political and military onslaught they sought a remedy and began resisting the aggressors.

This converted traditional Islam into political Islam and a fundamental Islamic movement was given birth on the basis of the pure tenets of the tradition. They thought by such a reversion they could overcome their weakness against an arrogant imperialism and in the end would attain both terrestrial and celestial dignity and honor. But in continuation of such struggles, while fully consenting to the general goal of that political movement, the modernists concluded that the battle between Islam and the West was far serious compared to the medieval Crusades to end with military engagements and even a military victory.

The pioneers of the new movement understood that the problem could not be solved by repelling imperialism even if such an attempt proved successful because our backwardness has continued centuries before the penetration of modern Western imperialism. On the other hand they understood that without employment of new sciences and technology they could not solve their problem of backwardness, and as we know all sciences and techniques originate from the West and knowledge is wholly owned or governed by these imperialists.

Then as Iqbal says what must be done for these eastern tribes? To remain wholly passive to everything and say that all that happens for the best is impossible. Because our arch rival and universal conqueror will not let us stay in peace. Firstly such a thing is impossible and we can never become a Westerner by imitation.

Secondly, if we manage to become Western our historical identity will be wholly destroyed. Now should we continue our political and military struggle with our enemy and chant war, war with the foe until elimination of imperialism from the face of earth.

This is likewise impossible. Because in the first place in confronting the West we cannot achieve political and military victory and most probably before we eliminate our rival in the world we will be wholly erased from the earth and even our geographical identity will disappear.

Thirdly, if we take a chance to beat the enemy or manage to gain our independence by expelling them, then how can we solve our historical backwardness and degeneration of culture, morals and civilization.

Should we adopt a portion of the inventions of the modern civilization and reject other parts? If such a selection is possible what criteria must be used and from which source? Should we take our criteria from our religion, from contemporary sciences or consider the exigency of the time or from all of these factors?

Then who or what groups should make the section? Such questions did not occur to traditionalists and are neither raised today. In fact all harbingers of Islamic movements were unanimous that 1 the West is dominating us; 2 we are weak and are at the verge of annihilation; 3 we most do something to solve the problem; and that 4 a reversion to genuine Islamic codes is a solution or can at least help the Muslims.

But to reply to these questions scholars seriously differ and the gap between them is widening. In all the Islamic world and particularly in Iran we can witness deep differences of opinions and grouping of two rival camps. The truth is that as Iqbal Lahouri said the modernists consider a revision of the whole Islamic system as the most preferred strategy over other suggestions and developments.

One of his important steps was establishment of the Aligar University. Sheikh Mohammad Abdeh, a student of Jamaloldin, abandoned traditionalism and fundamentalism and began intellectual and cultural revolution in that direction.

But the most distinguished Islamic modernist in the contemporary times is Iqbal Lahouri. It was in fact Lahouri that raised the fundamentals of modernism and made a lot of fruitful efforts to answer the problems encountered and questions raised by that faction.

In other words Lahouri might be called the father of religious modernism. After Iqbal, the most prominent figure in religious modernism was Dr. Ali Shariati who defined the matter well and understood Iqbal well. During his short life, Shariati endeavored a lot according to his abilities and competence to leave a valuable heritage for continuation of this new school of thought.

Meanwhile in Iran Mahdi Bazargan also had a remarkable role in religious modernism. Nowadays personalities such as Dr. Hassan Hanafi in Egypt, Dr. Jaberi in Morocco and many other figures in the East and West are marching towards that end. In the following two tables a comparison is made between the opinions of traditionalists and modernists with regard to theology and understanding of the West.

However it is necessary to note that only part of such opinions are reflected in these tables, the information is produced without commentary or analysis and is authentic and is based on written general opinions of intellectuals and political pioneers of these two schools of thought.

In fact these two tables are the sum of their opinions and not opinions of individuals or factions within these two schools of thought:. A comparative index of the opinions of fundamentalists and modernists on West and Islam: The opinion of the fundamentalists traditionalists on West.

Both worldviews have their distinctive way of thinking, speaking and acquiring knowledge. For centuries, both existed side by side as complementary, each covering a different area of human inquiry. Armstrong criticizes modern science for dismissing the mythological dimension of human life and thus leaving human beings with no way of explaining their "inner world.

She suggests that while fundamentalists need to become more compassionate and tolerant, secularists must themselves find ways of dealing with the fears and anxieties of modern societies. The Battle for God is a very informative, well-documented and challenging book. Crammed with information, which many readers might find somewhat overwhelming, it does an excellent job of charting the continuous struggles between secular culture and conservative movements in three world religions.

There is little doubt that the rise of fundamentalism, particularly in modern times, is a reaction to the secularizing trends that have beset the West and are now making inroads in other parts of the world. The author is inclined to believe that the conflict between fundamentalists and the modern scientific world can be resolved or at least assuaged.

How this can be done she never spells out in detail. The reader is assured at the beginning of the book that fundamentalists "have no time for democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance, peacekeeping, free speech, or separation of church and state. If the answer is in the negative, then social and religious conflicts are bound to increase and the future of religion looks rather grim.

John A. Saliba, S. Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.