Formulation of the claim
Islamic fundamentalism does not surpass modernity, nor is it supposed to settle the conflict with it.
Explanation
Arkoun sees Islamic fundamentalism as having no ultimate superiority over modernity, however strong or coherent it may appear. It enters into a historical and conflictual logic that does not grant it the triumph it imagines, but instead renders it vulnerable to defeat, as happened to other fundamentalist forms in European history.
In this sense, fundamentalism is not read as a decisive alternative to modern transformation, but as a position that confronts modernity from a stance of protest and refusal. The claim to superiority in it is therefore closer to an ideological illusion than to a historical reality.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom appears within Arkoun’s critique of fundamentalism as a discourse that seeks to monopolize truth and recover lost certainty. It is linked to what he says about the limits of closed foundationalism, as well as to the comparison he draws with European fundamentalist experiences that did not endure the major historical transformations.
Limits of the claim
This does not mean that modernity is absolutely accepted by Arkoun, nor that he describes a swift or automatic end to fundamentalism. What is meant is the rejection of the idea of the decisive superiority of Islamic fundamentalism, not a final judgment on all its manifestations or trajectories.
Brief evidence passage
He sees Islamic fundamentalism as ultimately doomed to defeat, just as Christian fundamentalism was defeated
Arkoun criticizes the illusion of the superiority of fundamentalist Islam over modernity