Its been stated that one definition of a fundie is the belief in biblical inerrency, and as a result the fundy believes that homosexual behaviour is to be condemned.
I’ve read of terrorists described as muslim fundamentalists to be differentiated from mainstream Islam.
But I wonder. Aren’t most if not all Muslims fundamentalists? Ever heard of a Muslim challenging the inerrancy of the Koran? Ever heard a Muslim advocate for gay rights?
Just what is the moral difference (from the perspective of an atheist humanist or a homosexual) between an American fundie and a Muslim?
It’s all in the interpretation - of the Bible, of the Koran, whatever. Plently of Christians will tell you that the relevant passages of Leviticus refer solely to homosexual prostitution, or even tell you to ignore them.
Most interpretations of the Koran, the ones which most Muslims live by, are moderate ones. Yes, I have heard muslim gay rights advocates. The Koran is incredibly forward-thinking compared to the Bible - it spells out rights of divorce in detail, as well as a husband’s obligations to perform sexually, just to give two examples.
Here’s a few terms that might be useful: Islamist - someone who wants Islam to be the form of government in a Muslim-dominated state. That is, the law of the land is the law of God, or shari’a law. An Islamists is probably also a…
Muslim fundamentalist - a broader term which suggests that the person takes most Qu’ranic injunctions seriously. Islam’s the most important thing in their life, but they don’t necessarily believe that the government should be ruled by God alone. The word ‘fundamentalist’ might be thought to be somewhat insulting, and so “Pious” or “Godfearing” might be used as similies in English.
Muslim - someone who identifies as a Muslim, and follows the five pillars of Islam. Might not follow all Qu’ranic injunctions if they feel they are not relevant, so might, for example, shave or drink alcohol occasionally.
With the above in mind, a vague match would be something like Christian fundamentalist / pious Christian = Muslim fundamentalist / pious Muslim. Certainly not Christian fundamentalist = Muslim.
I suspect that one potential problem with this discussion is that we have a term that has wndered in and out of specific meanings, meandering through very narrow theological constructions and wandering past popular usage.
Originally, Fundamentalist meant an adherent to that form of Protestant Christian Conservatism that was exemplified by the series of early 20th century pamphlets later gathered together under the title The Fundamentals. Biblical literalism and inerrancy were a strong aspect of those beliefs, but they were not the whole of those beliefs.
Later, the term came to be more broadly used to refer to any conservative Protestant. After the rise of the “Moral Majority” in the States, it began to appear as shorthand for Protestant Christians on the political far Right.
From that usage, as (North) American society began encountering Muslim conservative movements, such as that led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, the word was transferred to any religious movement that was perceived as holding the extreme right-wing position along the spectrum of any religious beliefs.
(I recall a number of occasions when various Fundamentalist Christians expressed great outrage at the use of the word Fundamentalist when applied to Muslims in any situation. Those Fundamentalist Christians argued that the word was only appropriately used to identify people of their own group who actually adhered to the tenets of The Fundamentals.)
Given that bilbical literalism and inerrancy was only one of the platforms of the Fundamentalist movement and that the word has now been co-opted (when not capitalized) to simply mean “right-wing believer” (of whatever religion is under discussion), it is rather difficult to create an accurate equation of the word to any non-Christian religion. If one sticks with the original technical definition, then all the points made in The Fundamentals that are outside Islamic law preclude Muslims from being called fundamentalists. If one accepts the looser definition of “far right religious movement,” then it is pretty obvious that one cannot call all Muslims “fundamentalists” because you need enough “other” Muslims in order to have a “right wing.”
How does it work, practically? In the U.S., let’s say I’m a Methodist. In a decent-sized city, there would be multiple Methodist churches I could go to and I could pick one which was more moderate than the Church’s “official” teachings. If I’m out in the sticks, I might be stuck with just one church, and I’d have to either choose to go to it but not personally buy into everything I hear there or not go and just continue to call myself a Methodist, living my life by my read of how Christ wants me to live my life. Other options, of course, are to spout the official line when appropriate (say, at the church mixer) but not live that line or to oppose (actively or not) whatever I find objectionable while still believing in the “overall” of Methodism.
So now let’s say I’m a Muslim in Kuala Lumpur. Obviously, most of those options would be available to me – I could certainly stop going to a mosque and continue to call myself Muslim, and I could certainly say that while my local Mosque opposes homosexuality I personally belive that Allah intended all His children to be happy and live their lives as they choose.
And it’s important to note that Islam is a less centralized religion than Methodism is a sect – indeed, while Islam has some very broad sects, even within those there aren’t really “official” heirarcheries in nonsectarian countries the way there is a Vatican or a Methodist hierarchy. They’re more like the Baptists, with ministers becoming more or less influential kind of on their own strengths, and even the Baptists have “official” organizations.
Given all that, could I find a mosque which was gay-friendly the way I might find a gay-friendly Methodist church in New York? Heck, even in the U.S., does Al-Fatiha (cited above) have a “home mosque” where their members are welcome?
My sense is that Islam overall has a lower percentage of believers who believe in true inerrancy (that the world was created in seven literal days and is only a few thousand years old, for example) than does Christianity in the U.S., and that once one has pierced the “inerrancy barrier” it’s not so far to interpret the Bible or the Koran justly, so it would seem to me logical that I could find such a place.
Why would it be valid to assume that a criterium(?) for Christian fundamentalism- inerrancy of the Bible- is an appropriate criterium(?) to use for determining what is and isn’t Islamic ‘fundamentalism’?
Who doesn’t? Well, let’s see: in most nations with majority Christian populations, the Christians are currently struggling with the issue of whether to allow gay marriage. And that’s struggling: not even overwhlemingly opposed. Even the most socially conservative Christians think that homosexuals are sinners, but not that they should be entirely verboten from society or forcibly corrected at the point of a gun, let alone simply executed as abominations. Christian families with gay members by and large tolerate them, at worst preaching to them or throwing them out.
Meanwhile, even fairly mainstream Muslim figures have things like this to say:
Certainly there are fringe Christian groups that advocate this kind of hatred and violence, but they are nowhere near as widespread, accepted without comment, or very powerful. It’s just silly to compare the life of a gay man in America or Britian to one in Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, etc. and claim they are equally stigmatized and in danger in both places.
The article also notes that tolerance of homosexuality among Muslims has, if anything, declined up until recent days: it apparently was once far more tolerated.
The gay reform movement in Muslim countries is most certainly fighting hard and gaining ground, but it would be silly to pretend that Muslim cultures are in general more tolerant than Christian cultures. They have farther to go, and Christianity in general has come much farther in this respect than Islam in general. In the U.S. gay people can speak out openly, and the few murders of gay people are undertaken by deranged individuals and condemned by everyone but Fred Phelps’ family. In countries like Lebanon, when they speak out it is through masks: for fear of being murdered.
Maybe not in America or Britian, as they are developed western nations (Christianity has little to do with it). However, you can reasonably compare the life of a gay man in Turkey, Egypt, Libya, etc. to those in Zimbabwe, Uganda, Zambia, etc.
the cleric was up on changes of discrimination for calling homosexuality a “contagious disease”. I bet if I was allowed to search, I would find simular quotes from you about Islam or Muslims. crosses fingers Can I have you arrested now?
If you’ve read my other posts, - [and please, by all means do, FIND my discriminary posts!] - you’ve must have read I was one of the first in my country to actually teach Muslims to speak Dutch. Help them with housing, jobs, etc.
I was one of the first in my country to protest against any discrimination, by whomever.
Go read some more, sweetheart. Then come and arrest me. :rolleyes:
Angua, That’s the way the cookie crumbles, isn’t it. When 84% of our muslim population thinks homosexuality is a contegious disease, it’s very hard to listen to the remaining 16%.
About 50% of the Americans didn’t vote for Bush, yet they are all accused of war crimes. Like Liberal said: Welcome to the club.
Yeah, tis true. And it saddens me, but hey ho, like you say, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Can’t help it if I’m far more tolerant than many of the people I purportedly share a faith with.
It seemed to me like the OP’s reasoning was this: