h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

An interesting article, but...

It doesn't say much about islamic fundamentalism!

It talks about religious fundamentalism in general, and about how Islam is misunderstood, quite fairly in both cases. But I have the feeling that I'm not getting the article promised by the title.

I dare say there are people who beleive that Islam is inherently a more violent religion than, say, Christianity or Judaism. I don't agree with them, and I do think they should read what you have written.


But here is my angle: religious fundamentalism is dangerous, whatever the religion. There were Christian fundamentalists who burned witches and heretics in Europe in the middle ages, and are still in the US, running the government and shooting doctors; there are Jewish fundamentalists settling the occupied territories; and there are (aren't there?) muslim fundamentalists in organisations like Al-Quaeda.

Sure, the behaviour of those groups doesn't reflect the values of their religions, which all have laws and values designed to encourage people to live together in peace. It is a mystery to me why this doesn't seem to bother them. This is what I wanted to learn from the article!

I think I know what your saying.
I guess the title is a bit misleading as its more about the definition of fundamentalist and how that reflects to Islam.

One of the points supposed to being made in this entry is that the term fundamentalist should not be used to descripe the so called Muslims who commit atrocity.

Islam is based on fundamental views and so in the litteral meaning of the word, then all Muslims are fundamentalist as we follow the fundamentals of Islam and will not bend away from them.

Now the other point being made is that if people like Osama was fundamentalist then surely they would actually follow what the Quran and ahadith say, which they are not.

A Muslim fundamentalist for example is not allowed to kill civilians, not allowed to commit suicide, not allowed to destroy civilian structures etc, some thing unfortunatly Osama does a lot of.

So I think the main thing being notted is that the word fundamentalist has become a word to signify any group that does bad against another regardless of what they are following or not.

So I guess what I'm saying is that those who are called Islamic fundamentalists should actually be called some thing else as the term has no real bearing on Islam as all Muslims to a degree are fundamentalist.

As for the mystery surrounding the issue of why not following what the Quran etc says, I think it is because the heads of these organisations do not really believe in God.
They then use there knowledge of the religous textx to show that why they are doing is right and allowed.
This only works on people who are very firm in there belief but do not actually know all of the Quran and hadiths and do not check up on what there told.

If all muslims actually read the Quran and hadiths all the time and did not take peoples words for granted and checked out what had been said to them, we would find that there would be a massive decrease in these terrorist groups numbers.

I hope thats of any help to you, but if you like any clarifaction on any points then please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks for your imput.

Adib

You say all muslims are fundamentalist, using your, more correct, definition of fundamentalist.

How does this compare with the views that evangelical (fundamentalist) christians hold of more liberal christians? Liberal Christians are more likely to interpret the bible with the aid of reason, and consider much of it allegorical, not dispute science or evolution, and be tolerant of theological differences. Evangelicals will often say that the liberals are not really Christians.

Would you say that a muslim who took an approach similar to the liberal christians is not really a muslim? If so, are there such people anyway, and do they consider themselves muslims?

Going back to the Chrisitians, I've not known of any liberals using violence for sectarian ends, but history is full of violence by people who seem to be in the fundamentalist camp.

Well in the christian persition the term fundamentalist was used to discribe thouse who believed the bible was one hundred percent correct regardless of scientific evidence. Where as the more liberal ones admit those bits that clash with science are wrong and either work around it or do not let it concern them.

From a Islamic perspective the problem lies with the fact that as of so far the Quran has no things written in it that clashes with modern science. For example it says that all the planets, moons and suns move in orbits of sorts. Which agrees with modern science.

The only clash with science at the moment is over evolution or creation.
but as evolution is not a scientific fact and there is plenty of things wrong with the theroy to say those who belive it may be mistaken.

On top of that the only way to prove creation is to prove god exists and the only way to disprove creation is to prove god does not exist so it is a argument either side can not win.

So in essence there is no need to move science and Islam away from each other as both agree with the other very well, so there is no splitting of Muslims over the Qurans authenticity.

But moving away from the whole science aspect I quess the closest I think we could find of a liberal Muslim who would do things that are not Islamic due to wanting to fit in with those of the west.
Now in my apinion in my head I think people who sell there faith to get further in this world are not very good muslims but I would never actually say that to some one.

What I mean by that is I will not go, oh you know so and so, well he/she is not a good muslim because she did this and that.
As by doing that I would not be a good Muslim as it is not my place to judge people its Gods.

Instead what I do is talk to them about it and let them no it is not allowed in Islam, and if they still do it then that is there choice and they will have to live with it.
Plus I will be rewarded when I die for trying to help them, where as if I did nothing I would be punished.

There is a story about this sort of thing it goes some thing like this:

These two pois Muslim men where walking down the street one day and they both saw another Muslim who was not that pois.
the first Muslim pointed him out and said to his friend see him he is not a good Muslim, and went on to say why he was not.
after the first man had died the second man saw him in a dream and he was in hell, he asked why he was in hell and the first man said because I critised another Muslim when I shoul have helped him.
god had sent the first man to hell in place of the unpois Muslim who went to the heaven.

And if you read though the many ahadiths there is hadith after hadith upon back bitting and critisisng others.

So to get to the point I can not say they are Muslim or are not as its not my place to.

you are quite correct about history being full of voilence by those in the fundamentalist camp, a classic example was the crusades, which was commited by Christian fundamentalists, not that they get called that in history class.

As I tried to say in the entry, one country when dealing with a minority of another country or faith is usually given the label of fundamentalist.

E.g the war on terrorism. When America and Britain attacked Afganistan people where saying it was a fundamentalist state and many of the average population in England and America actually believe that all Afgans where/are fundamentalists and so terrorists.

Then because America had said that it was going to war because of Islamic fundamentalists and terrorism we had Ariel Sharron step up and invade more palestinians homes and camps using terrorism and fundamentalists as a excuse,

after that we had a tense air over Pakistan and India when india said that pakistan was a Islamic fundamentalist state and condoned terrorism, which then left Pakistan in the perssition of having to allow america use of its air bases other wise it would look like thay where supporting terrorism and so India would have a valid reason to go to war.

what it comes down to is a matter of perspective.

Adib

Well in the christian persition the term fundamentalist was used to discribe thouse who believed the bible was one hundred percent correct regardless of scientific evidence. Where as the more liberal ones admit those bits that clash with science are wrong and either work around it or do not let it concern them.

From a Islamic perspective the problem lies with the fact that as of so far the Quran has no things written in it that clashes with modern science. For example it says that all the planets, moons and suns move in orbits of sorts. Which agrees with modern science.

The only clash with science at the moment is over evolution or creation.
but as evolution is not a scientific fact and there is plenty of things wrong with the theroy to say those who belive it may be mistaken.

On top of that the only way to prove creation is to prove god exists and the only way to disprove creation is to prove god does not exist so it is a argument either side can not win.

So in essence there is no need to move science and Islam away from each other as both agree with the other very well, so there is no splitting of Muslims over the Qurans authenticity.

But moving away from the whole science aspect I quess the closest I think we could find of a liberal Muslim who would do things that are not Islamic due to wanting to fit in with those of the west.
Now in my apinion in my head I think people who sell there faith to get further in this world are not very good muslims but I would never actually say that to some one.

What I mean by that is I will not go, oh you know so and so, well he/she is not a good muslim because she did this and that.
As by doing that I would not be a good Muslim as it is not my place to judge people its Gods.

Instead what I do is talk to them about it and let them no it is not allowed in Islam, and if they still do it then that is there choice and they will have to live with it.
Plus I will be rewarded when I die for trying to help them, where as if I did nothing I would be punished.

There is a story about this sort of thing it goes some thing like this:

These two pois Muslim men where walking down the street one day and they both saw another Muslim who was not that pois.
the first Muslim pointed him out and said to his friend see him he is not a good Muslim, and went on to say why he was not.
after the first man had died the second man saw him in a dream and he was in hell, he asked why he was in hell and the first man said because I critised another Muslim when I shoul have helped him.
god had sent the first man to hell in place of the unpois Muslim who went to the heaven.

And if you read though the many ahadiths there is hadith after hadith upon back bitting and critisisng others.

So to get to the point I can not say they are Muslim or are not as its not my place to.

you are quite correct about history being full of voilence by those in the fundamentalist camp, a classic example was the crusades, which was commited by Christian fundamentalists, not that they get called that in history class.

As I tried to say in the entry, one country when dealing with a minority of another country or faith is usually given the label of fundamentalist.

E.g the war on terrorism. When America and Britain attacked Afganistan people where saying it was a fundamentalist state and many of the average population in England and America actually believe that all Afgans where/are fundamentalists and so terrorists.

Then because America had said that it was going to war because of Islamic fundamentalists and terrorism we had Ariel Sharron step up and invade more palestinians homes and camps using terrorism and fundamentalists as a excuse,

after that we had a tense air over Pakistan and India when india said that pakistan was a Islamic fundamentalist state and condoned terrorism, which then left Pakistan in the perssition of having to allow america use of its air bases other wise it would look like thay where supporting terrorism and so India would have a valid reason to go to war.

what it comes down to is a matter of perspective.

Adib

I take your point about the Crusades, and I thought it was particularly crass of George Bush to use the word.

I recently heard the 'Beyond belief' programme on Radio 4, discussing Islam which can be heard at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/index.shtml?focuswin

probably until Mon 15 Sept 03, but possibly longer.

BBC Description:

Divisions within Islam

Is it possible to be both “secular” and “Muslim”? In Beyond Belief this week, one of Ernie Rea’s guests will say that it is, while another will most vehemently declare that it is not.

Islam is often portrayed as one unified whole, with the exception of the hard-line fundamentalists who preach “holy war”. The reality, of course, is that Islam has as many divisions and differences as Christianity.

Join Ernie Rea and his distinguished panel of guests in this week’s Beyond Belief as they reveal a much more complex picture of the Prophet and his followers than the one often portrayed by the media.


If you heard it, do you have any comments?

I did not hear it, but I have heard most of the arguments before.

Where they talking about Sunni, shira etc muslim groups or the other type which is groups of Muslims from all sects that follow some organisation.

Yes, they spoke about that, and there was one chap who said that he called himself a secular muslim, becuase, he said, Allah is ineffable, and therefore he wouldn't accept any Imam telling him what Allah is like.

There was also a short mention of the wabadi (is that the word?) who seem to get most of the bad press, with the Taliban etc. (The Taliban is another example of a terrible regime long supported by the US.)

hmmm yes indeed.

Well the guy calling himself a seculim muslim himself is not really right in that regard.

If a Muslim calls him self any thing but a muslim then he is moving away from his faith.
There was a meeting in Birmingham, england called Muslim or British and it got some bad press because of lack of understanding of what it is about.

All it was dealing with was the level of intergration a Muslim is allowed to do in Islam, which is essentially that you do not do things not allowed in Islam.
For instance do not go to the pub and drink alcohol just to fit in with the people you work with.

Anyway the disscusion was about nainly that we only call our selfs Muslims and do not use terms such as british muslim as this goes against the teachings of Islam.
Thats why I'm a Muslim living Britain and not the other way around.

As for what he says about Imams teaching about what god is like well he is mistaken there.
A Imam is some one who has learned a lot lore about Islam than most people and leads the prayer at a mosque.
The Imam can only help people towards worshipping allah he can not say what god is like.
The actual Imam's at the time of the prophet and after his death where just thoughs who leed the prayer.
Which I will explain, when you have a group of Muslims one person can lead the prayer so all can do the prayer together rather than on there own.
This person was the man (Woman if it wa only a group of women and no men there who are over puberty) who has the most knowledge on Islam.

The only things that we take for granted about God is what is in the Quran and ahadith and no one would try to say what God is like by not using only those sources.

I have not heard of that word before but maybe its just spelt wrong I think I know what you mean but I will just double check before I go leaping in with another long load of text about the wrong subject.

Adib

No I'm sorry, I really am not sure about that word.
I have not come accross it before.

Adib

I think it is interesting that the term fundamentalist was coined by and for a new (i.e. non-traditional) US Christian movement in the 1920s which believed in a more literal interpretation of scripture, and tried to promote its particular doctrines.

What you seem to be saying, and this seems to agree with what I've heard elsewhere, that it is not a feature of Islam for fundamentalists to be particularly interested in questions of doctrine - that that link is more peculiar to christianity.

So maybe fundamentalist is not a good word. But I think we are stuck with it - and surely there are common features between the muslims and christians (and jews, hindus, ...) who commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion which can be understood and opposed in similar ways.

Well yes I know what your saying, I will try to elaberate the whole issue of it from my point of view.

A Christian fundamentalist is some one who follows and adheres to the bible regardless of clashes with modern science etc where as a normal christian follows the bible but acknowledges that it has errors in it concerning modern science and other areas and so they do not follow there book blindly.

On the other side of it we have a Islamic fundamentalist.
The problem with this is that the Quran does not go against any modern science area in any regards (acept maybe evolution but hey that is just a theroy and can not be proven).
this means that there is no clash to modern science like the bible and so its authenticy as a book written by god is never challanged by science.
Now here comes the tricky part a normal muslim is the one who follows and adheres to what the Quran says.
where as it is the people we call fundamentalists that are actually ignoring or ignorent of what the Quran says meaning that in essence the problem of Islamic terrorists is due to the direct oposite reason there are christian terrorists.

I hope that makes sense.

where that problem lies is that media coverage in the west does not do a good job of showing the truth about Islam and people generaly do not know much about it, and do not realise that the Muslims who follow the Quran properly (be it word to word or just in essence) are not the proble makers, but rather it is the ones that do not read it and listen to others about what is in it and so are led astray.
This is why in the Quran we are told to never follow blindly, and this means that if some one says some thing about whats in the Quran we should actually make sure it is in the Quran, even if it is a scholor telling us it.

I don't mean that Muslims should not believe what there Imans tell them or what scholors say but what I mean is if you are told some thing you are not sure about or some one else says is wrong then look to see what the Quran says your self.

To me people like Osama bin Laden etc are not following the Quran, An I would like to say they are not Muslims but I can't say that.
Only God can say that, all I can say is that they are not following what the Quran says is right and wrong.

Sorry for my long winded answer.

adib

I hear what you say.

At risk of straying off the topic, I would add that all scientific theories are in a sense unprovable. (Read "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper)

However, scientific theories are subject to critical examination and empirical refutation, whereas other (religious/metaphysical) theories are not. This makes scientific theories in my opinion a better form of knowledge than any religious doctrines.

For a good discussion of evolution, age of the earth, etc, see http://www.talkorigins.org/

I will check out the site, but I will be surprized if it actually deals from a Quranic perspective rather than a biblical one.
Most sites with discusstions on Evolution and Creation or religion and science tend to deal only with biblical accounts and leave out the Quran.

The Quran has so far never actually had a contradictery statement to modern science.
The only real difference comes from evolution and creation, where the problem lies with that evolution is just a theroy and can not really be proven.

As for learning from, You can learn from the Quran but it is not a science book.
It is a book of signs to man kind and a book about God and our relation with Him.
So your are quite right in saying that science books are better at a more advanced level of education as thats its purpose, The Quran just makes scientific statments here and there as a example of Gods power.

Adib

I have looked at the site in brief, but alas it does not really have any thing from the I slamic view point.
But then again its the same boring arguments going around in circles.
The only way to 100% percent prove evolution is to have a complete new animal come from another in a short amount of time that we can see.

The only way to disprove God creating us is to prove that God does not exist. The only way to prove God exists is for God to come and say high and thats it.

For A muslim the Quran proves God's existance with what it says, but for those who have not read it in Arabic or in other poor translation then they would not know.

What I'm saying is its a stalemate.

Adib

"For A muslim the Quran proves God's existance with what it says,"

Similarly for the bible and many Christians.

But in each case if the belief in God is justified by the book, then belief in the book is an act of faith, not logically justified.

If I were to commit such an act of faith, I'd sooner it were belief in God directly than belief in a book.

We are getting off topic here, but there doesn't seem to be anyone else around who will mind...

I don't mind at all.

Well I believe in God I don't need the Quran to do that.
The Quran though we belief is the word of God told to Mohammad by Jibreal and so to us the Quran is all the proof we need.

As for worshipping the Quran, thats not allowed, we only worship God nothing else.
I have to say belief about the Quran because to Muslims its fact that the Quran is Gods word, but to none believers they do not see it like that and hence the Muslim believe, if that makes me sense let me know.

The Quran just tells us how we should behave, live our lives and how to praise Allah.

As for the bible and Quran thing, the Quran was written at the time of the prophet where as the Bible was written hundreds of years laiter, so there is a difference.

The reason why we belive the Quran is Gods word is because we where told it was by Mohammad (pbuh) and after studying it there has been found no fault or contradictery statement in it, which just leads to its credence for us Muslims.

adib