A Critique of Islamic Fundamentalists
All fanatic religious movements share the same confused and distorted understanding of Islamic principles and tend to apply them out of context and without proper safeguards. Their confused understanding of Jihad, for example, leads them into applying it out of context and without its traditional, well-established safeguards. Thus, they utilize Jihad to justify their terrorist, secret activities within an established political order, and against other Moslems. Jihad, however, can only be invoked against non-Moslem in open and fair battle with prior warning. Secret assassination and sabotage can never be justified in terms of Jihad. But Jihad itself, in the sense of compulsory conversion of others to Islam has been repealed and is no longer operative. The only legitimate means of conversion now open is peaceful conversion.
Lack of insight concerning their own condition is a common feature of all Islamic fanatic movements and is reflected in claims of moral superiority and natural guardianship over others who happen to disagree with them. They believe that they alone know what is good for everybody and propose, if necessary, to force others into conformity.
Such conceit and arrogance is cultivated as a result of the total absence of moral education and self-criticism among the leadership of these movements. They somehow succeed in convincing themselves of their natural infallibility and inherent moral superiority. They believe that everything wrong in the world is the fault of evil men who must be told what to do. Anyone who fails to comply with their commands is to be killed for the good of mankind.
It is therefore obvious that in dealing with these movements and organisations we are not dealing with rational human beings. Rather, it is a psychotic condition which must be dealt with. As such, it can be extremely dangerous and destructive if not handled properly. The only proper response must be an absolute insistence upon the rule of law and the maintenance of all the rights and liberties of men and women, regardless of race, sex, religion or creed. These fanatical movements must also be exposed and confronted with enlightened Islamic thought.
To finish this critique on a hopeful, constructive note, we observe that these fanatic, reactionary movements are not representative of Islam at all. Although Islam today lies dormant in the Koran it is possible to evolve new rules of Sharia to meet present needs. (See Republican Brothers brochures Introduction to the Second Massage of Islam and The Religion of Man.)
It may be legitimate to enquire, at this stage, why Islam at all? Why bother to evolve traditional Sharia, a proposition which is so vigorously opposed by Moslems themselves? Why should we seek an Islamic ideology rather than embrace the readily available secular ideologies?
The answer to this logical line of thinking, to our minds, is simply that none of these secular ideologies are capable of providing the right formula for the satisfaction of our material, moral or spiritual needs. Each of them purports to satisfy one at the expense of the others. Moreover, as we shall see in the following critique, they fail even in achieving their purported objectives.
