This is the most shocking aspect of the scenario. How dare he use his power to end the life of a woman, based on a grudge. It is a truly appalling misuse of power.

If Mohammad is right, and the Qu'ran is correct, Allah will most suredly judge this man. I think when all is said and done, we will find that his actions are deplorable under Islamic, Christian, and Jewish teaching.

Had she money, she would have had a lawyer, and so not had to use her "sharp tongue". </font>[/QUOTE]Money isn't the issue, nor is her legal defense, or lack there-of, it's a problem with Sharia, and the ways Islam treats others in general (women are equal to 1/2 a man in legal discourse, ie it takes 2 male witnesses to prove something in islamic court, or 1 male and 2 females, non muslim men are not even counted as important as a muslim woman (to say nothing of non-muslim women), Iran has a rather more fundamental interpretation than most islamic countries (with the exception of Taliban run Afganistan, and a few others), leading to more severe injustices against those who disagree with the party line. Granted there are a lot of primarily muslim countries where women have significantly more rights, but a corrupt judge could just as easily do something similar in any one of them (although it likely wouldn't go so far as the death penalty, and if it didn't we never would have heard about it.

To Timber and Yorik, Yorik, your interpretaion of fundamentalism is quite different than TL's, the Waco incident in the 90's with the Branch Davidians , the entire Taliban regime, Iran's regime, all fit with Timber's definition of fundamentalism. Your personal view of what fundamentailist is is different, cool, call it something else, like Morgeruatism, or Timberism if it makes you more comfortable, but don't get nasty and snippy, I've been avoiding this forum because I felt the need to walk away and let cooler heads prevail rather than let loose against some members whom I don't agree with and get myself banned.

Yorik, this is from the definition you posted on the first page (last post on that page), it fits quite nicely within T.L.'s definition, you highlighted parts of it that agreed with your idea of it and ignored several parts of your definition, if you take out the part about the US it would read rather more like this "An organized, militant Evangelical movement in opposition to Religious Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture."

the church you described (your father's) is hardly militant, nor does it seem overly intolerant, it doesn't go about saying any who don't adhere to it's dogma are damned, it may believe in the fundamental teachings of Christ, but that doesn't (by your own definition) make it fundamentalist.

now can we please stop arguing about what the definition of "is" is , and continue onward in the topic.

[img]graemlins/imnotworthy.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/Nothing_funny_to_add.gif[/img]

Morgeruat, thanks for spelling all that out. I have not had the patience to come back and do it.

Yorick, the power is all yours -- rename what I'm discussing if you like. Call it FUBAR fundamentalism, as I suggested, I don't care. My definition stands, you just give me the term to insert, tell me what word I'm defining, mkay?

I'm not a guy hung up on nomenclature.

[ 08-27-2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Morgeruat, you rock. That was an excellent post.

Branch dravidism was a CULT. By definition a minority offshoot of existing beliefs. It is not fundamentalism. It is radicalist, extremist, but not fundamentalist, relative to it's origins.
In determining what is fundamentalism and what isn't you need to look at what the professed beliefs are, look at the majority of followers of those said beliefs, and then compare which follows the tenets fundamentally, liberally, radically, extremely, conservatively, reformatively etc etc etc etc.

Branch Dravidism was a radical and extreme offshoot of it's mother.
The Taliban was a radical and extreme application of Islam. You could probably argue it was fundamentalist, but that would involve researching what the fundamental beliefs of Islam actually are. The Taliban followed Wahabist Islam, which was a reformation of Islam to a fundamental level. No honoring of the prophets. Only honoring Allah. Strict intepretations of the original tenets of the faith


If militancy is fundamental to a worldview, then being a militant whatever, is a fundamentalist approach.... ack back in a tic

Goddammit would you please pay attention. Branch Dividism fit my definition, and that was the point. Rename it what you will and quit beating us over the head with your damned definition.

Take my definition and apply it to the facts, and call it whatever the hell you want, and quit preaching, man.

Your quoted definition: Contradicts your statement:
You have defined fundamentalism as limited by those "fundamental values" upon which it is based, and that is not anybody's definition of fundamentalism but your own. You can't even follow the definitions you quote. Is English even your first language?

I'm trying to have a discussion about a recipe of characteristics that leads to militant behavior. You're trying to debate the nomenclature we use for those characteristics. YOU WIN!!!! I said it already -- name it what you will. I don't care to hear anymore debate about the name we call this thing, I'd like to move on and discuss a social formula that may result in the problems we see coming from Islamic Fundamentalism. Call it BOB for heaven's sake -- I DON'T CARE!

Just, please quit derailing this into a liturgy of why you feel we've hurt your feelings by using a word. APOLOGIES -- AGAIN!!! I apologize, acquiesce, and then beg you to move on, yet you continue to rant and rail. Please just stop it and let's get back to discussing the issues.

[ 08-27-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Contradicts your statement:

Quote:

If militancy is fundamental to a worldview, then being a militant whatever, is a fundamentalist approach

You have defined fundamentalism as limited by those "fundamental values" upon which it is based, and that is not anybody's definition of fundamentalism but your own. You can't even follow the definitions you quote. Is English even your first language?

I'm trying to have a discussion about a recipe of characteristics that leads to militant behavior. You're trying to debate the nomenclature we use for those characteristics. YOU WIN!!!! I said it already -- name it what you will. I don't care to hear anymore debate about the name we call this thing, I'd like to move on and discuss a social formula that may result in the problems we see coming from Islamic Fundamentalism. Call it BOB for heaven's sake -- I DON'T CARE!

Just, please quit derailing this into a liturgy of why you feel we've hurt your feelings by using a word. APOLOGIES -- AGAIN!!! I apologize, acquiesce, and then beg you to move on, yet you continue to rant and rail. Please just stop it and let's get back to discussing the issues. </font>[/QUOTE]I think it's pretty logical and simple Timber. Fundamentalism is AMORAL. It is a completely relative term. A fundamentalist Christian is the opposite of a liberal Christian, as they hold to the fundamental ideas, whereas a liberal compromises, personalises, alters, or adds elements. Same with a Jew, Muslim, Communist, whatever.

I would not call Stalin a fundamentalist communist because of his approach to the economy during the war for example.

It can be argued that fundamentalist Islam, is in fact militant, because a literalist imitative approach to the faith results in that behaviour. Do you see? A literal interpretation of the Bible - in particular, the Christian NEW TESTAMENT, results in an entirely different set of behaviour outcomes. What you often find Americans calling "fundamentalists" are actually more revisionistic - looking at the old testament rather than the new for example.

I do note, that the problem is in America, and the incorrect labelling is most often done by Americans. As said, within the Christian Churches, the Anglican Church, Sydney diocese, is regarded by fundamentalists, and Liberals (Uniting Church) alike as being what it regards itself as - fundamentalist.

I have to go... but if you can see the word "fundamentalism" as a method to having certain beliefs, rather than the certain beliefs themselves, we'll be in a clear position.

Calling it "Islamic Fundamentalism" suffices.

But it doesn't get all of the religions that I have defined. It limits it to a group of people not to a set of characteristics. May I emplore you to try a different term? A term that is not already well-defined?

I still like FUBAR Fundamentalism. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The set of characteristics are in METHOD. It's a very adequate descriptive term of a person of faiths METHOD. It's a clarifier within a faith. Liberal and Fundamentalist Muslims have more in common with each other than they do with Liberal or fundamentalist Christians. The behavioral outcomes are very different.

The American media would love it all to fit into this neat little box we can all deride and hate, but it's not like that.

It's like conservatism. Conservativism is right wing, but is still relevent to the existing political ideal of the conservative persons society. A conservative Russian during the last years of communism, would have been communist, A left wing radical would have been a capitalist democrat.

It does require a little bit of understanding, possible research and knowledge, but then that's a good thing right? :D :D

The fact is, a fundamentalist Christian, would have followed Jesus example, and prevented the crowd from executing the girl being hanged/stoned for adultery. ;) GRACE is fundamental to Christianity's salvation theology, but not to Islam.