The Idea
This claim presents fundamentalism as not content with defending religion, but as seeking to impose an old religious model on society. More importantly, it does not rely on persuasion alone; rather, it uses force and violence as two essential means. In this sense, fundamentalism becomes a project of imposition and subjugation, not merely a call to return to the past or to preserve identity.
Condensed Formulation
Fundamentalism: imposes an old religious model through force and violence
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim occupies a decisive analytical position within the book’s argument, because it defines the nature of fundamentalism as both a political and a religious practice. It explains why Arkoun views it as a threat to the public sphere and to the possibility of plurality. It is therefore part of a broader critique of any attempt to return society to a closed model in the name of religion.
Why It Matters
Its importance lies in distinguishing religiosity as a spiritual experience from fundamentalism as a project of coercion. This distinction is essential for understanding Arkoun, because he rejects reducing religion to violence just as he rejects justifying violence in the name of religion. It also helps the reader see that the problem is not the past itself, but imposing it by force on the present.
Reading Questions
- What is the difference between defending religion and imposing a religious model by force?
- How does the text link fundamentalism to violence as a means rather than an incidental occurrence?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.