on an almost entirely pejorative tone when its actual meaning is just that some
people take the basic elements of their creed very literally.Islam, of renewed
political importance since the Iranian revolution, has probably most often been
qualified by this adjective, with world-wide concern that Islamist fundament-
alism could spread throughout theMiddle East. The reason this particular
creed has been picked out is that strict adherence to Islamic belief clashes more
intensely with the political culture of Western society than does a firm
commitment to most branches ofChristianity, and thus seems regressive in
a world where most advanced economies are at least influenced by the values of
the latter. This clash was originally felt particularly keenly over Iran, because
the Iranians rebelled against a modernizing autocracy; a return to traditional
Islamic beliefs coincided with a rejection of most of what the country had
formally been asking the West for. So on issues such as the criminal code, the
rights of women, and freedoms of religion, political activity and speech, a
‘fundamentalist’ religious approach conflicted with the secular values of most
Western societies. This position was raised to its ultimate in Afghanistan at the
turn of the century, making it the obvious target when the 11 September
atrocity of 2001 caused the USA to embark on a ‘war against terrorism’, where
the main source ofterrorismwas seen as this Islamist fundamentalist move-
ment. (See alsojihadandshari‘a.)
In a similar way certain Protestant Christian denominations which have
become politically important in America are often tagged ‘fundamentalist’
because they too affront the liberal consensus that dominates the political
classes in America. Opposition toabortion, a stress on strict sexual ethics,
pressure to de-secularize the state by allowing prayer in schools, and all the
trappings of Nonconformist (but often, also of Roman Catholic) belief have
come to present a threat to politicians, traditionally of greatest strength in the
South and Midwest. There seems little to be gained by using a word like
fundamentalism to describe a clash of values. Its attraction stems from the way
that ‘un’-fundamental attitudes, stripped of their own original religious origin,
have come to seem, to their holders, more natural, and somehow to possess
greatervalue freedom. What has to be noted is that fundamentalist sects have
been far more successful in mobilizing their believers than have those sects, of
any religion, which have rather moved with the times and reduced their
demands and prohibitions on their congregations. (See alsosecularization.)
Fundamentalism