Part of an email debate on fundamentalists - wanted to throw it out there

[T Roosevelt]

This came about regarding some Hal Lindsey solutions talking about using pigs to combat Islamic terrorism (I will post later).

Just looking for opinions on the various points, particularly what it is to be "fundamentalist", and Islamic dichotomy (two houses).

Also, I really don’t see what Hal Lindsey being a Christian "Fundamentalist" has to do with the articles. I am a proud believer in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. As a fundamentalist, I also adhere to the fundamentals of mathematics, chemistry, accounting, etc. And given that the Bible is literally God's Word, wouldn’t adhering to ITS fundamentals be an intelligent choice? If one believes the WHOLE Bible, that is biblical fundamentalism.

BUT, I also understand where you are coming from and why you think being branded a fundamentalist is a bad thing. First, and regrettably, many Christians who are called by others or refer to themselves as "fundamentalists", take the Biblical concept of separation from non-Christians, and even other Christians, to UNBIBLICAL extremes. That is easily corrected with a reasonable study of the Scriptures. And even if some people do follow Jesus in the wrong way and twist the Scriptures to suit their own desires (a fulfilled prophecy), does that mean that Jesus isn’t the Messiah? Does that mean that Jesus didn’t die as a sacrifice for our sins? Does that mean that He wasn’t buried and prove that He didn’t rise from the dead? Of course not. And another reason why "fundamentalism" is looked at so negatively is due to the fact of Islamic fundamentalist.

It is Muslim fundamentalists who are demanding that each person has to adhere to the same dress and customs that Muhammad did in the 7th century. So people look at all fundamentalists and paint them with the same brush. I don't think that is being very honest with the facts. And concerning Islam, we can disagree about the depth of its threat, but let's at least agree what a horrible threat it is. Consider that at the heart of Muslim fundamentalism is the ideology that the world is divided into two parts: either one is of "Dar e-Salaam" (House of Islam/House of Peace) or one is "Dar e-Harb" (House of War). There can be NO PEACE (not in America, not in Europe, and certainly NOT IN ISRAEL) until the entire "Dar e-Harb" either converts to the "Dar e-Salaam" or perishes by the sword. Don’t believe me or Hal Lindsey- the Qur'an and Hadith are very clear. Given this, we must develop an either/or scenario. Either we deal with Islam, or Islam will deal with us! When we truly know what Islam stands for, it is easy to see that the past threats of Nazism and Communism are very similar to Islam, and in the same way must be defeated.

One more point I have to address because it is such a lie. It's the mantra that "Islam is a religion of peace." All I ask from people is for a few examples, EVEN ONE EXAMPLE, of where Islam has ever brought peace and tolerance. That is not asking for much. People are always citing the millions of peaceful Muslims who are not terrorists. This is true. However, these are not following the true tenets of their own faith as expressed in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Furthermore, VERY FEW ever protest against the actions of the terrorists. So who do you think they will side with in the battle between Islam and the world? Easy- whoever wins. And until someone does, they will remain silent and neutral, for fear of being on the losing side.

[EdGy]

1. whoever wrote that knows nothing about Islam

but is merely repeating bullshit racist neocon propaganda. They do not know what they are talking about, they are absolutely wrong.

There is no difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists.

None.

But this is the kind of person who, I believe, is hopeless and will not be convinced no matter what actual facts or evidence you present. They've already been innoculated against the truth by the fundie propaganda they've swallowed.

Sorry to be a defeatist...

[ijk]

2. a couple of comments

Consider that at the heart of Muslim fundamentalism is the ideology that the world is divided into two parts: either one is of "Dar e-Salaam" (House of Islam/House of Peace) or one is "Dar e-Harb" (House of War). There can be NO PEACE (not in America, not in Europe, and certainly NOT IN ISRAEL) until the entire "Dar e-Harb" either converts to the "Dar e-Salaam" or perishes by the sword. Don’t believe me or Hal Lindsey- the Qur'an and Hadith are very clear.

A staggeringly popular thing to say among conservatives nowadays. Try a google search on "house of peace" islam, and you'll find little but page after page of conservative rant on how the muslims are coming to get us. All braying in unison, near-identical phrasing, all over the place.

Let's leave aside for a moment questions like how christian americans feel when nonbelievers try to tell them what their religion means. Particularly nonbelievers who know as little about the topic as these. And we'll let slide the peculiar phrasing here that seems to be suggesting "Salaam" can be freely translated as "Islam", found repeatedly among most of the ranters.

Even ignorant, fundie-leaning American Christians probably realize that through the history of Christianity, there have been one or two little disagreements over interpretation of the bible. Even over passages that on the face of it seem much more straightforward than references to the house of peace in the Koran, like... oh, take your pick. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Slavery. Animal sacrifices. The trinity. Christians have, on more than a few occasions, prosecuted every act of violence imaginable against those who disagreed with their interpretation - be they Muslims, Jews, Aztecs or other Christians.

As with Christianity and most of the rest of the worlds' major religions, some followers of Islam have interpretations that lead them to violence. Most - including many if not most 'fundamentalists' - do not. Most muslims today believe the House of Peace refers to the afterlife, and the House of War - like jihad - to the internal struggle of living people to act virtuously.

But we have a splendid opportunity, by lumping all muslims together inaccurately and slaughtering them casually, to convince hundreds of millions of people that maybe a few fundie terrorists are onto something after all. Good idea, that.

All I ask from people is for a few examples, EVEN ONE EXAMPLE, of where Islam has ever brought peace and tolerance.

If you take the islamic world from its inception up to, say, the 18th century (to stay largely pre-colonial; after that it's a whole other ballgame, in which we can no longer casually associate nations with religions) its record stacks up pretty well for peace, tolerance, and enlightenment. Not first among cultures, perhaps (hmm. Interesting question, that) but probably rather better than christian europe through the same period. The good centuries of the ottoman empire, the golden age of muslim spain, Saladin... One could go on for a long time.

[seabeyond]

3. one simple question

does he/she eat shell fish, and if so what is justification on not literally following the bible. levedicus (sp)