Good question!The liberalism-fudamentalism is the false dichotomy as applied to the context of Muslim civilization. There are no pre-modern counterparts of the notion in the classical Muslim scholarship.Even Averroes who is inaccurately portrayed as anti-traditionalist rationalist in orientalist discourses based on false extrapolations about Muslim intellectual tradition imported from the specific Eurocentric context, shared more in common with anti-Western Muslim “fundamentalists” than “liberal” Muslims who consciously or unconsciously have internalized what Hilaire Belloc terms as the spiritual chaos of Western humanity.
Take the example of infallibility of Scriptures.A fudamentalist Jew or Christian would say that Bible is the literal Word of God which it isn’t as per orthodox Muslim belief which asserts that pristine Torah and pristine Gospel gradually degenerated into distortions resulting in the spiritual decline of Judaeo-Christian humanity.A liberal Christian is justified to disbelieve what is not required by God to be believed.But, as far as Islam is concerned even the most disbelief-tending(because globalized Western education self-defeatingly glorifies scepticism rather than faith) would not question the Infallibility of Qur’aan-ul-Hakeem as Precise Word of Allaah. As far as Naskh is concerned, it is the unanimous belief of Ahl-us-Sunnah and Ibn-ur-Rushd(Latinized as Averroes) belonged to Ahl-us-Sunnah. Theoretically there is no such Muslim as a fundamentalist or liberal Muslim, rather the spiritual diversity of Muslims is more a manifestation of individual differentiation that characterizes any human society.Some Muslims are less religious than others, but there is no oxymoron more oxymoron than the myth of a disbelieving liberal Muslim.Think out of the Eurocentric box to start understanding Islam.