Editing Islamic fundamentalism (section)

===Controversy===
====Criticism of the term====
The term "Islamic fundamentalism" has been criticized by [[Bernard Lewis]], [[Khaled Abou El Fadl]], [[Eli Berman]], and [[John Esposito]], among others. Many have proposed replacing it with another term, such as "puritanical", "Islamic revivalism" or "activism", and "radical Islam".

Lewis, a leading historian of Islam, believes that although "the use of this term is established and must be accepted":

{{blockquote|It remains unfortunate and can be misleading. "Fundamentalist" is a Christian term. It seems to have come into use in the early years of the last century, and it denotes certain [[Protestantism|Protestant]] churches and organizations, more particularly, those that maintain the literal divine origin and [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrancy of the Bible]]. In this, they oppose the liberal and modernist theologians, who tend to have a more critical, historical view of Scripture. Among Muslim theologians, there is as yet no such liberal or modernist approach to the Qur'an, and all Muslims, in their attitude to the text of the Qur'an, are in principle at least fundamentalists. Where the so-called Muslim fundamentalists differ from other Muslims and indeed from Christian fundamentalists is in their scholasticism and their legalism. They base themselves not only on the Qur'an, but also on the Traditions of the Prophet, and on the corpus of transmitted theological and legal learning.<ref>Bernard Lewis, ''The Political Language of Islam'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 117–118, n. 3.</ref>}}

John Esposito has attacked the term for its association "with political [[activism]], [[extremism]], [[fanaticism]], [[terrorism]], and [[anti-Americanism]]", saying "I prefer to speak of Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism."<ref name="esposito-1992-8">John L. Esposito, ''The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 8.</ref>

[[Khaled Abou El Fadl]] of UCLA, a critic of those who are called Islamic fundamentalists, also finds fault with the term because:

{{blockquote|[M]any liberal, progressive, or moderate Muslims would describe themselves as usulis, or fundamentalist, without thinking that this carries a negative connotation. In the Islamic context, it makes much more sense to describe the fanatical reductionism and narrow-minded literalism of some groups as puritanical (a term that in the West invokes a particular historical experience)<ref>abou el Fadl, ''The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists'', Harper San Francisco, 2005, p. 19</ref>}}

[[Eli Berman]] argues that "radical Islam" is a better term for many post-1920s movements starting with the [[Muslim Brotherhood]], because these movements are seen as practicing "unprecedented [[Islamic extremism|extremism]]", thus, they do not qualify as movements which are returning to the practice of historic fundamentals.<ref>Eli Berman, [http://econ.ucsd.edu/~elib/tamir.pdf Hamas, Taliban and the Jewish Underground: An Economist's View of Radical Religious Militias], UC San Diego National Bureau of Economic Research. August 2003, p. 4</ref>

====Defense====
In contrast, American author Anthony J. Dennis accepts the widespread usage and relevance of the term and calls Islamic fundamentalism "more than a religion today, it is a worldwide movement." He notes the intertwining of social, religious and political goals found within the movement and states that Islamic fundamentalism "deserves to be seriously studied and debated from a secular perspective as a revolutionary ideology."<ref>Dennis, Anthony J. ''The Rise of the Islamic Empire and the Threat to the West'' (Ohio: Wyndham Hall Press, 1996), p. i.</ref>

At least two Muslim academics, Syrian philosopher [[Sadiq Jalal al-Azm]] and Egyptian philosopher [[Hassan Hanafi]], have defended the use of the phrase. Surveying the doctrines of the new Islamic movements, Al-Azm found them to consist of "an immediate return to Islamic 'basics' and 'fundamentals'.&nbsp;... It seems to me quite reasonable that calling these Islamic movements 'Fundamentalist' (and in the strong sense of the term) is adequate, accurate, and correct."<ref>Sadik J. al-Azm, "Islamic Fundamentalism Reconsidered: A Critical Outline of Problems, Ideas and Approaches", ''South Asia Bulletin, [[Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East]]'', 1 and 2 (1993), pp. 95–7.</ref>

Hassan Hanafi reached the same conclusion: "It is difficult to find a more appropriate term than the one recently used in the West, 'fundamentalism,' to cover the meaning of what we name Islamic awakening or revival."<ref>Quoted by Bassam Tibi, "The Worldview of Sunni Arab Fundamentalists: Attitudes toward Modern Science and Technology," in Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, eds., ''Fundamentalisms and Society'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 85.</ref>