STEVEN says:

"And, to tame Islam, freethinkers must be prepared to CONFRONT Islam."

Careful Steven...'hati hati' :)... the forces of darkness are gathering around you for that most reasonable of comments.. CJ will send his minions and Pericles will be apoplectic, Ginxy will turn to substance abuse and Foxy will need therapy ..

I'm using a less confontational method these days- "Persuasion..through evidence"... but there are times when direct action is needed, such as when 'they' try to take control of a multi faith centre at a major university. grrrr....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6llkmjOGyyA

I think the ugliness of fundamentalism is not just in the language but the attitude or mentality. This is what I'm grappling with in trying to arrive at a meaningful understanding of what people are referring to when they talk about fundamentalism

Can we say that a fundamentalist someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable.

I was going to give a list of examples relating to different religions as well as atheism but perhaps I should stick to my own religion and suggest others consider how they would define a fundamentalist from within their own tradition or (non-) belief system.

For a Muslim, the Qur'aan is considered the word of God. So a fundamentalist in Islam would be someone who would adhered to the belief that the Qur'aan was the word of God despite clear and unequivocal proof to the contrary (for example due to contradictions which could not be explained other than it being the handiwork of man).

Having said that, I have not observed this sort of fundamentalism. The fundamentalism that arises from our ranks is referred to as the Kharajitism, but that's a long story. Essentially they adhere to certain beliefs and do so despite clear proofs (from mainstream Islamic scholarship) to the contrary. Their arguments are invariably self-contradictory and their views on the nature of God lead to a type anthropromophism (they will actually argue about how many hands God has!). Of course they are uncompromising and Muslims that disagree with them are libel to being labelled a kafir (unbelievers), which perhaps is symptomic of some form of cognitive dissonance (one for the psychologists!).

I wrote the above a while back. Although I suggested "others consider how they would define a fundamentalist from within their own tradition or (non-) belief system.", this was apparently overlooked or ignored.

So is there anyone who will to give it a try, applying the definition of a fundamentalist as "someone who is prepared to uphold a view or belief despite reason or evidence to the contrary. The belief or view is non-negotiable."

And if you disagree with the definition i would be interested in your reasons.

salaams

stevenlmeyer,

i have thought about the notion of outlawing vilification a bit more (i was being honest before when i said i hadn't thought about it..perhaps because i don't live in Vic). I'm really undecided.

On the one hand it is a restriction of freedom of speech. On the other it is usually used as a means of restricting informed discussed and often leads to injustice. For example, would you defend Martin Luther's right vilify of Jews in light of the Holocaust?

So its a matter of balance and taking the least of the two evils: restricting free speech versus allowing vilification which can suppress informed debate, cause division and incite violence.

So that's where i'm at. If you are keen to teach me and others more about the Victorian laws then start a separate post.

salaams

To counter the vilification of Stevenlmeyer and innuendo of AGIR about the Prophet, Muslims and the treatment of children here are several hadith

Allah’s Messenger kissed Al-Hasan ibn `Ali while Al-Aqra` ibn Habis At-Tamim was sitting with him. Al-Aqra` said, “I have ten children and have never kissed one of them.” The Prophet cast a look at him and said, “Whoever is not merciful to others will not be treated mercifully.” (Bukhari)

Ayesha, wife of the Prophet, told how a bedouin came to the Prophet and said,

"You (people) kiss the boys! We don't kiss them."

The Prophet said, "I cannot put mercy in your heart after Allah has taken it away from it." (Bukhari)

The Prophet once said, “When Allah blesses people with children, and they give their children love and meet their parental obligation, Allah keeps them safe from the fires of Hell.”

Miranda Divine has written a piece today which begins as follows (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/evil-were-too-afraid-to-confront-20100702-zu0m.html):

<<How did we arrive at a circumstance in which a 56-year-old man is convicted in the NSW District Court this week of sexually abusing eight children aged from 12 months to 14 years, videotaping thousands of unspeakable crimes, and barely a comment is made?
How did we arrive at a circumstance in which such a story is too dark for the front pages of our newspapers, but is buried inside, a few bloodless words to capture a social epidemic so catastrophic we ignore it?
We ignore it because to acknowledge the truth is to acknowledge our collective guilt for the plight in which these children found themselves, for the blind eye of tolerance we turn to the chaotic and increasingly commonplace family arrangements which make protecting children from predators like David Shane Whitby impossible.>>

She goes on to argue...
<<It is the community's responsibility to rebuild social norms destroyed through the social revolution of the past 40 years.>>

As i have mentioned before, i was raised in an atheist family, but i'm now raising a Muslim family. I have a full appreciation of the practical side of both lifestyles. Islam is fully equiped to respond to the challenges thrown up by the modern world which is why you will find Muslims in ME and countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as Australia, turning to Islam for real practical guidance on how to protect children and foster good character.

As Miranda's article suggests (and there are similar views ranging across the political spectrum), atheism and what Pelican would described as "a more advanced" Christianity is failing to combat the real challenges to civilised society.

Under such circumstances it is not surprising to find people desperating seeking scape-goats to avoid some pretty tough questions and choices.

But these are issues for a separate post, if anyone is game.

salaams