fundamentalism
Reader comment on item: There Are No Moderates: Dealing with Fundamentalist Islam
in response to reader comment: in response to your comment " the fundamentalism is the problem"

Submitted by B. Williame (Belgium), Oct 19, 2008 at 16:56

Shamim Ibn Aziz,

I don't know how you explicitly would define it. But you must understand that fundamental believers of a religion (any religion) are almost impossible to reason with.

If you are a moderate or even a non believer reasoning might be an option, but with extremists or what some call fundamentalists(I know they aren't meant originally as synonims but as language lives some things change...)

Extremists believe in what they follow to the extent of giving there life for it.(The life of others is as such definitely not a problem)

If a person is so bend on doing something to the point of giving his or her life for it, You must understand that discussing about just that, you'll find a wall put up and possibly violant actions towards you as you dare to question what they are willing to die for.

"Fundamentalists" is in the case of this conversation better replaced with the word "extremists"

Now what does mark the specific Islam Fundamentalist is the fact that there religion does ask for it's fundemental followers to spread/defend there faith by the sword if needed. Giving up there life for there faith.

Thus making Islam Fundamentalists = Islam extremists.

Because following there faith fundamentally makes them extremists. I do suppose you understand that giving others lives as well as yours for what you believe in as axtreme as it can get. (Don't know what one should do to be more extreme then this)

Fundamental socialists would probably give there lives to save others and not kill others for there own.

Fundamental Christians might let a person hitting them hit there other cheek, but won't kill for there own or there faiths glory. Stil willing to die for there faith.

Fundamental Capitalists might do anything for money, so you could consider them as extremists.

As you must understand any one can believe in something fundementally.

But to be an extremist it depends in what that person believes in fundamentally.

In this case a Fundamental Islamist = Extremist Islamist.

The fact that people believe that a certain book reëdited by a team of scholars and written by the followers of a person called Mohammed(Who wasn't able to write or read him self) IS the word of God.

Does seem worrisome. Then considering that even one of he's wives did make the remark that strangelly Allah would always seem to tell things so it would fit Mohammeds plans and yes they did...

That Mohammed was actually a sick person having moments of black outs and that he married a +/- 9 year old because she was able to memorize what he had said so well...(Marriage between an elderly man and a 'not even teen' girl is officially unlawfull and frowned upon in western sociaty)

All this and other things taken in consideration. (Can't blame me, I hope, for not using all the Hadiths, etc. to explain my current opinion) I do find it strange that there are people defending this alledged 'faith' as coming from a God...

But ah well, I'm not an expert on the divine.. but who could honestly say that they are?

Because to be an expert you should probably allready have died or at least met the subject of your expertize... In the case of the devine or God... Well I think the first one in this era might be Jezus but as he isn't doing talk shows well just have to do with what we got...

Anyways. Logic conversation with fundamentalist of something that might be seen as an ideology and is currently called Islam. Does seem rather tricky.

At least thruw the internet it does seem somewhat safe, but in person.. well, I'm not fundementally enough believing in afterlife to take that risk.

I hope this does answer part of what your question was.

The next part you said, I'm not agreeing with.

Islam also sees to some extent dogs as impure.

So having Islam as ruling ideologie over this world could have the following consequences:

- The extinction of dogs... all dogs with no exception... (where is Gaia, green peace, etc...?)

- The loss of all other cultures

- The loss of all other religions

- The loss of many freedoms.

- The loss of many historical items.

- The loss of history as it is currently known.

These last 5, I do understand I need to ellaborate on them.

All these things will be lost for the following reasons:

- Islam do not allow history written in a different way then what they are currently teaching. My previous talks with Islam Imans made me understand that there are many differences, so when Islam becomes the ruling power, History will be re written and the truth once more will be the victim.

- Historical items like statues are not welcomed much in Islam as depicting for example Mohammed is a crime. Considering what happend in India with some of there historical monuments.. Islam has allready had followers levelling some... so having Islam as a ruling power would probably be the end of them.

-Many freedoms... Well people can't draw Mohammed, name a class teddy after him or make jokes about him... So adding to that list all other things holy to Muslims... having women remarry a man from there choice will be one of the many freedoms going down the drain as well with other freedoms poeple enjoy to some extent in the 'western sociaty'...

- The loss of many religions... Ever heard of The peace of Islamic? Seems that only implies to the followers of Islam.... If you believe me on my word, you won't need to do an internet chearch, but else feel free... I read and heard about Islam followers kidnapping christian and Hindoe girls forsing a conversion and marrying them to other Muslims, some who where able to escape and wheren't catched by there new 'inlawfamily' or the police could tell the tale... the others? They dissapeared into Islam society.... I think people would be tending to call that kidnapping and brainwashing....

"There can be only one" does then seem as a terrifying thing...

- The cultural loss is also something then of wordly proportions... would this be wrong?

I'm not sure, but tell the scots the kilt would be forbidden, Tell Brazillians that their females should be wearing a robe according to Sharia regulations, etc... You probably do understand that many cultural differences would be swept away if the entire world would be ruled by Islam. Bu!t if it would be for the better? There might be enough other ideologies out there who'd also have such an effect... You won't hear me vote for their world domination either...

To finallize, I'll quote you:

" Look at the past of Islam. Under the rule of Islam Muslim and non -Muslim led their life in a peaceful way , and there was a harmony of coexistence."

Now lets see... Mohammed him self led and/or gave he's approval to raid pelgrims and caravans from other religions. Later (skipping some other examples) You get Islamist followers invading spain to the west of europe and on the eastern front being halted by no other then Vladimir Dracul, becoming a legend... And thanks to Bram Stocker(or something) a mythical being.... Nevertheless he is a historical figure.... Now, do please change your previous words with something else then harmony and coexistence based on the fhew hints I just gave you. I've looked at the past of Islam... and have only seen harmony and coexistance between Islam followers and hardly any towards those who where not.(if they dared to keep there ways and not follow Islam ruling)

I do hope my response might be somewhat enlightening for you. Though I fear your not open minded enough for this.

Regards,

BW

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.