A religion exists when, over time, individuals who share the same beliefs freeze their dogmas and organize their practices. While the three monotheistic religions have in common a belief in a unique God, creator and omnipotent, as well as some common prophets, it is the essence of their faith, in particular the role of the individual person in the religious community, that differentiate them.
Over the centuries Christianity has experienced several schisms that led to different views of what a believer is, such as, in simplified terms, a penitent seeking to gain paradise for Catholics, and a worker labouring for the glory of the Lord for Calvinist Protestants. Over time Christianity became accustomed to these differences; inquisition wars are now followed by talks of ecumenism, even if the dialogue is fairly caught between the Vatican and other synods. Aside of the secession between Sunni and Shi’a bearing primarily on the allocation of religious authority, Islam is not subject to substantially different confessions. Islamic norms therefore exist, even if no defined by a hierarchy; they are based on the Koran, indisputable founding text that shall never be altered and interpreted, and on commentaries, hadiths and other positions taken by those that the community considers as scholars. Faith and its practices are strictly regulated, and the society shall be ruled by Sharia law, deemed complete and immutable.

In this context it is possible for an individual to be a good Muslim if he does not strictly follow all established standards, for example if he does not pray five times a day, if he consumes intoxicants, or  reproduces images of the living by drawings or photography? Of course, when living in an open society he will feel bolstered by the other “deviants”, thus tolerating some lax religious forms. But he knows that from a strict point of view he commits sins and that, facing a true believer, he will have no argument to justify his deviances because Islamic law does not allow him to make that kind of choice. If he lives in a country where Islam is state religion and state law he will be called to order and will have to amend his behaviour to comply with the norm. In Western secular societies, religious communities (sects) are formed which exert a similar social pressure on their members. The weak and impure must submit to those strict holders of the law. It should be noted that the same was true at the time of Catholic Inquisition and the only escape for the deviant was to hide or run away, but never to reveal himself.

Moreover, the fact that apostasy is considered a sin worth the death punishment lets a moderate Muslim feel forced to hide his moderation to avoid the risk of being accused of abandoning his religion, a treachery. In order not to lose his status, even his life, he will extort from himself a profession of faith that goes beyond the more or less soft beliefs he could have had. This is a creeping phenomenon of self-radicalization that can be seen in countries that were previously considered tolerant and moderate such as Morocco and Turkey.

It can be argued that any fundamentalism is an extreme form that shall be rightly rejected by the mainstream of every religion, and that in itself it does not possess a particular religious truth. This is certainly the case among Christians because they are exposed to a sufficiently large number of sects and are no more impressed by their extreme preachers. Also, within and among the various denominations a never-ending debate is going on about the very essence of faith, for doubt is an important part of Christianity. In Islam no doubt is allowed.

Is there anything possible that can be different than fundamentalism in Islam? In the absence of contradictory doctrinal positions only more or less violent behaviours are the distinction between the true and integer religious form, and the so-called moderate way (or corrupted for some). Between the two there is continuity of doctrine, no break. The ones who is designated as moderate, while not obeying all the rules, will find himself constantly exposed to injunctions to improve his religious practice. This is the exhortation to jihad, fighting against yourself and against all forces opposing the right way, the Sharia.
It follows quite naturally that an individual who previously did not care much about his religion may suddenly – just because he is paying some more attention to it- change from a soft and ignorant tolerance to strict views that are consistent with all standards of his newly [re-]found faith. Then this so-called radicalization looks like a simple homecoming or normal conversion. Paul was on the road to Damascus, why shouldn’t be the same for Ibrahim or Aslan?
If we combine the conversion of an individual with the impetuosity of his youth, and with a tendency to looks at thing in a binary way, without nuances, it is then not surprising that violence may result. Of course, from the perspective of humanistic culture, this looks catastrophic, such as bullying and other tortures imposed on women, or the armed fight against the unbeliever. But from the perspective of one who considers himself a good Muslim this is the only possible way that is compliant with the requirements of jihad. This is why he cannot see himself as a terrorist but as a resisting fighter, a warrior for truth. As for moderation, just as it is unthinkable that a Pope would promote abortion, we must never expect an imam to preach against jihad; the most that can be hoped is a message of non-violence, which some pronounce with hesitant convolutions in few European mosques.

Where extremism can be found?

In Christianity there are sects where extreme views are preached, but these sects are isolated and clearly identified, such as Écône in Catholicism, or Protestant creationists. This is apparently not the case in Islam where all movements are part of the whole, without clearly defined borders. This makes it difficult to position the religious leaders because, in the absence of a hierarchy except in the Shia minority, every imam is free to give his interpretation without involving anyone other than himself[1]. From outside that sounds as a cacophony where anyone can express an unverifiable contradictory position.

Islamic extremism does not manifest itself as a particular religious point of view, it is rather a political movement that aims at taking or retaining power, each group having its own way. Note that if extremist parties also flourish in democratic societies they have to be satisfied with a protesting position because they know that, except winning a revolution, the voting majority never entrust them for taking executive responsibility[2]. The spirit of Islam is to merge the governance of a country with religion. This is why secularism will not find its place in those societies, a shocking fact those who believe in its universal virtues. Of course in a country that was secularized in cavalier fashion ninety years ago, the relatively democratic forms practiced by the Turkish AKP have nothing to do with Salafisme which absolutely rejects modern secularity. But since its coming to power in 2003, a clear orientation towards greater religious conformity is observable in Turkish society; simultaneously some gains of secularism are now being challenged (e.g headscarves are allowed in public buildings). And, like the Muslim Brotherhood, those who dream establishing a new caliphate think that this political project is consistent with all social norms of Islam. They even promise protection and benevolence to the followers of other religions (care that does not extend to atheists). But, given the Saudi, Egyptian and even Turkish examples, this remains to be seen to be believed.

In Europe strong Muslim minorities are primarily the result of recent immigration to the mainland from North Africa, Turkey and the Balkans, or to Great Britain from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. With few exceptions these minorities accept the principles of the rule of law and democratic institutions that prevail in the host country, even if the natives are often suspicious of that allegiance. Those who demand exceptional rights and advocate the rejection of the customs and traditions of the host country do not represent any constructive political force; too much attention is given to them and it would be mistaken to believe that their objective are only religious. And if their daughters get a Western education these conservative tribal groups will dissolve within a couple of generations.

All of this is difficult to grasp: it’s not about approving or not any particular religious cult but rather to understand the thinking and the underlying rules that can help predicting, and if possible containing, potentially adverse consequences for our societies. It is futile to expect a moderate Islam as this is indefinable. What can be hoped is that our Western humanistic culture will remain strong, avoiding arrogance and self-flagellation (both sources of decadence), and that it will reveal itself as an evidence to those who taste its benefits.