I’m sorry about that, Angua. Like I’m sorry for the other 50% of Americans. It seems the good always must suffer from the bad apples in the basket, huh. 
I truly wish there was something I could do. But it seems I’m running on empty.
Assuming for a moment that you reserve the term “fundie” for that particular brand of deeply religious people who are also blather-mouthed nutjobs… the difference is that one of the two you listed is a nutjob?
Seriously, as several posters have already said, it’s legitimate to discuss what percentage of any given population subscribes to what we consider “backward” concepts. What is not OK is to then go and say, “well if this population mostly (say 70%) subscribes to these notions, I’ll tar all of it with this brush”. There are still 30% “non-fundies” in that population!
Or, more generally, every person should be judged individually and not according to the group they belong to. That starts with avoiding ever saying “Group A has trait B”. It doesn’t. Perhaps “Many people who belong to group A also have trait B” is more cumbersome - but it’s important to make the distinction.
Dani
(Who doesn’t want to be tarred with the same brush as the Jewish Fundmentalist Nutjobs we have too many of here…:()
How Christian of him! 
True, and that underscores the suspicion of the people in the article I posted that the real roots of anti-gay bigotry are as much cultural as they are religious. Still, I’d like to know of a predominantly Muslim country that could even HAVE a debate on whether to allow gay marriages.
Possibly Albania which has decriminalized homosexuality and did so in part following lobbying by gay Albanians:
http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/europe/albania.htm
But I bet even that is a stretch ( still, slightly better than at least Roumania, not that that is saying much ). Indonesia at least appears to have a much higher cultural tolerance for discreet homosexual activity:
http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/Asia_Pacific/indonesia.htm
But in general, no, I doubt you will find any predominately Muslim country where the level of discourse and freedsom even remotely approachs the U.S… True, you’re not going to find that anywhere in the Third World and you can certainly find some non-Muslim countries ( South Asia in general for example ) where gays have a worse legal standing than Albania or Indonesia. But anyone arguing that today “Muslim cultures” in general are more tolerant than “Christian cultures” ( many of which are now considerably more modernist and secular on average when you throw Europe into the mix ) would certainly be deluding themselves.
Then again, I’m not sure anyone has been arguing that ;).
Modern Islam overall is almost certainly the most currently retrograde of the major religions when it comes to homosexuality. Scripturally however it is pretty much on the same plane as the other Abrahamic faiths. And homosexuality by all accounts is not rare in Muslim society, just usually hidden ( parts of Indonesia perhaps excepted ), which in some ways may be easier done in the ME/NA than the west - P.J. O’Rourke, writing from Lebanon in the early '80’s, once commented on the incongruity from an American POV of seeing a pair of AK-47 toting militiamen walking hand-in-hand down a street in Beirut. But that sort of touchy-feely closeness between two men, that would set any sane westerner’s “gaydar” pinging wildly in the U.S., is apparently passed without a second glance in parts of the Muslim world. Given that, it may well be that the greater ease of hiding and the ability to display passing affection without obvious public censure may act as a greater relief valve than one finds in the west.
But at any rate most Muslim countries ( as does most of the world ) still have an awful long way to go and if I were gay I’d certainly take a frothing Southern Baptist fundamentalist who is constrained by law ( and perhaps by now, depending on the individual, a few decades of anti-violent genteel acculturation ) over a stoning Muslim fundamentalist who is backed by law ( in a few places ) any day of the week.
With that said, no, most Muslims are not “fundamentalists”, my reasoning being much the same in kind as tomndeb’s. Fundamentalism in my view is a measure internal to a faith, not external compared to other faiths.
- Tamerlane
While googling for information for this thread, I found this interesting site: http://www.gaymiddleeast.com/
[Coach]
Al-bane-i-aaaaaa
Al-bane-i-aaaaaa
You border on…the…Ad-ri-atic
[/Coach]
Sorry, I simply can’t hear or read that name without that song running through my head…
Well, then you read wrong descriptions to begin with.
“Terrorists” are not " Muslim fundamentalists". There is no foundation for “terrorism” in Islamic teachings at all.
Maybe your “sources” should do some fundamental research.
How do you come to such a strange reasoning?
What has the (common) belief that Al Qur’an is unchanged since Muhammed to do with “fundamentalist”?
It is my studyfield and hence it is my responsibility as historian to challenge this claim, which I did.
I do. (But what has this issue to do with “fundamentalist”)?
Maybe you should read my posts in this thread
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254354&highlight=sura
Which had the potential to develop into an interesting debate if the author would not have abandoned it all of a sudden.
And maybe you could also read my posts in this one
which contains a link to my posts in this one
I find it always very strange that as soon as I show up with information that does not fit certain preconceived ideas people have, the discussion gets abandoned by the challengers.
I don’t know “US fundies” in the meaning you give them = fundamentalist Christian.
I have no idea why you seem to think that they would not differ from the average Muslim.
First of all: A Muslim definitely is not a Christian, which makes that a Muslim definitely is not a “fundamentalist Christian”.
So I have in fact no idea what you are talking about.
Salaam. A
I see there are once again some links popping up to what some raving so called Imams “declare” .
God, you people do not want me to provide you with some pages of raving Christian clerics and what they say about homosexuality, Islam, other Christians and no matter what some lunatics can find to throw mud at “based on the Bible”, no?
The difference is that Christian clergy can be seen as the representatives of (their brand of) Christianity, while Muslim Imams only represent their own personal view.
What some raving idiot in the Netherlands “says” is only what that idiot says. Not what Islam “says”. His influence goes not further then what people want to give it.
Salaam. A
Aldebaran, Are you stalking me? hehehehehe 
Not just homosexuality is accepted in Afghanistan. Turns out they go way big for pedophilia.
Forced sex. It’s not just for camels anymore.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/22/attack/main330234.shtml
"The Taliban tried to stamp it out, but with the stern militiamen gone from power, Kandaharis say the practice is coming back.
In pre-Taliban times, the battling warlords who laid waste to this city also were known to argue over boys who caught their eyes. Local legend has it that Mullah Omar was first called from his mosque to settle one such feud, in 1994 - stepping in between two militia commanders and winning the return of a young abductee, although accounts differ as to whether it was a boy or girl.
Citizens were so grateful, residents say, that the episode started the Muslim cleric on his rise to power."
Would you mind to explain this remark in detail?
Salaam. A
Among the small number of Muslims with whom I’ve discussed politics:[ul][li]Three were gay, and were, not surprisingly, gay-positive[/li][li]One was a bisexual queer activist[/li][li]One was a Muslim feminist, and a good friend to me and boyfriend of the time[/li][li]One was bothered by my homosexuality, but more bothered by the fact that I wasn’t Muslim[/ul][/li]
Then, of course, there’s Irshad Manji, the Muslim lesbian feminist who wrote The Trouble with Islam.
Naturally, my list of personal experiences is a biased sample. But liberal-minded Muslims certainly exist. Like Christians, you only hear about the worst ones.
Originally posted by Aldebaran
Excuse me?
This is an Imam, who teaches young muslims. He sells books in his mosque. Books like “The Way of the Muslim”
…
The Dutch Parliament is to hold an emergency debate about the El Tawheed mosque next week. MPs want Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner and Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk to explain what they intend to do about the book “De weg van de moslim”.
The publication — translated as The Way of the Muslim in English — is said to advocate violence against women and killing gay people.
Gay people should be thrown head first off high buildings. If not killed on hitting the ground, they should then be stoned to death, the book suggests.
In her column in newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, Hirsi Ali — who was raised as a Muslim — went one step further and called on the government to close the mosque. The MP has been a strident opponent of Islamic teachings on women and gay people.
The Liberal VVD party MP said it was time for the Justice Ministry to indicate whether it intended to go to court to have the mosque banned.
Hirsi Ali said the latest revelations about the book advocating beating women and killing gay people was the last straw. Closure of the mosque was a question of “political will”, she wrote.
“This mosque has been warned repeatedly by the authorities that intolerance against non-Muslims and undermining the law is unacceptable in the Netherlands,” Hirsi Ali said.
“The Way of the Muslim” is one of the publications on sale at the El Tawheed mosque. Earlier this month the mosque was at the centre of a storm about another book available at its open day organised to help combat the mosque’s negative public image.
That book “Fatwas of Muslim Women” says that women who lie deserve 100 blows and the husband’s duty of care for his wife is negated if she refuses him sex or leaves the home without his permission. One of its most controversial aspects is the call for Muslim girls to be circumcised.
[bolding mine] [http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=6851]
…
Don’t tell me that idiot has no influence. He teaches young kids, fer crying out loud.
Aldebaran:
Sure there is. Islam teaches people to oppose certain things, which leads to hatred towards people who engage in them–or the societies where they are condoned, which leads to violence. When they call for “jihad against America” they’re not offering to give us a makeover, and they wouldn’t be using that phrase if they weren’t Muslim fundamentalists.
Then how come you can’t tell the difference between “unchanged” and “inerrant”?
That’s good; it indicates you’re probably not a fundamentalist. But there is a very strong correlation between negative attitudes toward homosexuality and religious fundamentalism–Christian or Muslim. That should be fairly obvious, but you’re trying to lay down a “smokescreen”.
Not all terrorists are, but Al Qaeda, the Taliban et al are definitely Islamic fundamentalists, and that’s often who people mean these days when they say ‘terrorists’ or ‘the terrorists’ since AQ is obviously the most infamous terrorist group going today. Like other posters have said, being an Islamic fundamenatalist doesn’t make you a terrorist and vice versa. But you can be both.
You could probably say this about any religion (whether or not it’s true). But even so, some people use religion as the basis for tyranny, and some use it to justify terrorism. People who advocate killing nonbelievers, very strict government based on literal interpretations of scripture, and want to drag us back several hundred years into the past are fundamentalists.
Ah, looky here. More news about Imam El Shershaby of the Amsterdam mosque, El Tawheed:
Dutch charity accused of funding Muslim terrorists
Again: This Imam is teaching young kids.
No. I never said that there is no foundation in what people believe and their rejection of homosexuality. You seem to transfer what I say about the connection between “terrorist” and “fundamentalist Muslim” to this issue. There is no connection between both.
Salaam.A
Originally posted by Aldebaran
see my former link:
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=8140
Maybe you do some selective reading as well as selective answering, huh.
And again with the “language you did not study”? That’s getting old and tiresome.
Wrong. People who rewrite a religion in order to create out of it one that fits their goals yet THAT has no theological foundation in the original teachings, are not fundamentalist believers of that religion.
How can you claim they are? If I rewrite say: Hinduism, until it fits my political goals for using it, then I am a fundamentalist hindu?
OK… I shall think about it.
Impossible. See above.
I do not know enough about other religions to confirm this.
Yet I do know mine.
Now you said it. As I said above.
You would have a case if you were indeed talking about very strict government based on literal interpretations of scripture, yet there is no such interpretation possible if you know Islam and understand it.
And it would be a solution if people indeed went back to the roots of the teachings = would actually learn what is said in Al Qur’an and what it means. That I would call fundamentalist Muslims.
People advocating terrorism would not be a possible option in such a situation.
Salaam. A