Fundamentalism the Real Issue in Religious Rule

Enjoyed the Davis column, but don't want our country to promote pluralistic values over religious ones. Over a theocracy, yes; any day! The separation of church and state is vital to each individual's religious beliefs and practices. Also, from a blogger on Islam, I was glad to learn about the concept of "abrogation" in the religious teachings of the Qur'an.

I am delighted Mr. Waterford knows about the concept of abrogation of verses in the Qur'an. The book's spiritual verses, whether revealed in Mecca or Medina, were not abrogated at any time; but the earlier temporal verses (revealed in Medina) were abrogated by later temporal verses. For example, verse 5.51, prohibiting Muslims from trusting Jews and Christians, revealed around 622 CE (just before or after the Battle of Badr), was abrogated by verse 5.5, revealed 10 years later. It permits Muslims to eat and intermarry with "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, and others believing in God). It is important to remember that, while "war" and "peace" verses alternated during Muhammad's 10 years stay in Medina (depending upon the fluctuating soci-politico environment), verse 5.5 was the VERY LAST guidance he received, just before his death. Thus, this "peace verse" abrogated all "war" verses. And it was NOT abrogated by any other verse.

Based on this, Islam is a religion of peace (though some Muslims are not.)

'fundamentalism' does have a dictionary definition, and it can be helpful. It describes a militantly conservative American movement opposed to modernist tendencies and emphasizing a literal interpretation of Scripture. Other movements described as 'fundamentalist' would have similar characteristics.

By definition, perhaps a fundamentalist doesn't mediate between me and God, but I can imagine I'd either have to agree completely with or be regarded as mistaken by that person. I'd like to have the freedom to move along a path of understanding as rapidly as I can without being scolded, judged, shamed or scorned by others. And I hope I'd give the same consideration to all I meet along the way.

I imagine God, Spirit, Allah, a supreme being, as the same for all of us, perceived from different directions, different standpoints, through the filter of different experiences, but still the same deity. If someone's unique experience helps me better understand deity, God bless them.

Like many, I resist having beliefs dictated to me. Understanding comes from practice and proving, When my spiritual understanding increases sufficiently, I feel my life improve, and so I work to understand more. It's not something that can be forced upon me.

Weapons and bombs prove only the science of explosives. Oppression can frighten me to the point of hiding my opposition, but it won't persuade me to adopt uncharitable beliefs.

Many Christians have no trouble accepting that their bible is not the word of God, but is a human document written by people trying to understand God, given the state of knowledge and belief in their time and place.

Islam is inherently more fundamentalist than Judeo-Christianity because it has a very firm tradition about how its holy book was written -- it was dictated by Allah to Muhammed who repeated it for scribes.

To anyone but a Muslim, the Quran obviously reflects the conditions of one time and place. The non-questionable belief of divine authorship locks a billion people into the culture of that time and place.

The basic challenge of fundamentalism is the inability or lack of desire of the fundamentalist to tolerate anything that challenges her/his beliefs. This leads us to have many fundamental "Christians" to rely heavily on the Old Testament. The New Testament, filled with Jesus teachings, heavily challenges the fundamental ideas and dogma of the parts of the Old Testament with such confrontations as that of the the adulterous woman.
This leads us to the point that Phil is making about intermediates between man and God. If Jesus had gone to the Scribes for every and answer to every question he had, we would not have Christian religion today. This process of praying and listening to God can make some people uncomfortable, mainly because it forces them to be accountable for their own decisions. Relying on the "fundamentals" assuages this discomfort and to some extent deflects the responsibility of actions to another's decision-making.

i believe individuals who happen to be muslim share the innate desires for peace, love and harmony, but,

HELP!!!!

i've been asking this question over and over (apologies to those who've seen it) on various threads, but still no answer:

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?
please, i would really like to know.

What is "fundamentalism"?

Although this is probably not the dictionary definition, it appears to be the belief that since sacred texts come from God, no amount of human knowledge can ever supercede them. (e.g. It doesn't matter what we learn from fossils; the Genesis creation story must be true.)

What this implies, though, is that the test of any religious principle is secularism. The idea that the value of a woman's testimony if half that of a man's, has no secular basis, and is therefore wrong. Since laws apply to everyone regardless of belief, they must be based on knowledge available to everyone. You can put me in jail for reckless driving because you can show that my behavior is a danger to the community; you can't put me in jail because your holy book says that's where atheists belong.

Purely religious beliefs should never be the basis for laws.

DebChatterjee,

Your post is an example of why children should not be given guns, books of matches, sticks of dynamite, or the keys to a tractor. They lack the knowledge and skills, and reason, to use them responsibly.

The only appropriate response is relentless bombing till the country/region (SWAT/Pakistan)turns into Allah's badland.

Thank you for your post. The main question that comes out of it for me is your definition of fundamentalism. I do not define it the way that you do. It does not seem to me that the essence of fundamentalism is the mediation of one's relationship with God. There are many religions whose priests set themselves up as 'middle-men' in some form between God and the 'uninitiated'. This goes for all the major western religions to be sure, as well as most of the earth based or shamanic societies. Your definition would make all religions fundamentalist, no?

Your insightful post got me thinking about that bible story again and in looking over the text, I see that Jesus not only restored the woman's right way of thinking about herself like you imply but don't her accusers walk away convicted by their "own [restored] consciences" of who they are. So the right sense of just whose responsibility it was to govern God's children apparently lit up everybody around!

Thanks again for your insights.