Ah . . . well . . . We probably have different experiences here. In my case my contacts were mostly pastors and seminary students. We argued theology. I had occasion to study the history of Christian Fundamentalism, for example, during our debates. Christian Fundamentalism isn't closer to early Christianity. It was, as we know it today, founded by John Darby, an Anglo-Irish evangelist who lived from 1800 to 1882. He had more of a lasting influence on the U.S. than on Ireland or England. He influenced Louis Chafer who wrote a Fundamentalist Systematic Theology and also founded Dallas Theological Seminary. Actually it is anachronistic to call it Fundamentalism before about 1900 when a series of books called "The Fundamentals" were written. They called themselves "Dispensationalists." The Fundamentals were written as a response to Liberal Theology which was influenced by Germanic Theology. They claimed to want to get back to "The Fundamentals" of Christianity. A number of Conservative Christian churches were with them for a while, but the Dispensationalists ended up with the name. Pentecostalism and the Charismatics grew out of or were heavily influenced by Dispensationalism. The difference is that Dispensationalists, say Baptist Dispensationalists, do not believe the "gifts" are for today, but Pentecostals and Charismatics do. In the case of Islamic Fundamentalism, Youssef M. Choueiri has an excellent study in his book Islamic Fundamentalism. There is a claim that they have gone back to the original teachings of the Quran and Hadiths, but this is a modern attempt to approximate that history. They do not have continuity with the traditional teachers. Still, it is a weighty argument to say they are taking the Quran "literally." Christian Fundamentalists make much of that claim as well. Literality is equated with truthfulness. Those who won't take the Quran or Bible "literally" are accused of "spiritualizing its truths away." In the case of the Christian Fundamentalists, they want to take prophecy "literally" in order to support the eschatological scheme John Darby originated. In the case of Islamic Fundamentalists they want to take teachings literally that were ameliorated over the years by Islamic imams. You do not find the harshness in the traditionalists that you do in modern Islamic Fundamentalists. It is hard to argue against the Islamic Fundamentalists because the Quran really does say what they say it does. Islamic Fundamentalism was solidified in the Arab world by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brothers who was put to death, if memory serves, in about 1965. The Iranian form of Islamic Fundamentalism was formalized by Ruhollah Khomeini, and the Pakistan and Afghanistan version by Maududi who influenced the Deobandi School which in turn created the Taliban. Back behind Sayyid Qutb are the Muslim Brothers who were influenced by the Wahhabis. The teachings of Sayyid Qutb most concern us in the West because he taught that Mohammad's Jihad had been interrupted after the Righteous Imams died off. There was a great falling away, an apostasy. But the followers of Qutb's teachings have returned to the fundamentals of Mohammad's teachings. They have resumed the Jihad which involves killing infidels and those Muslims who have apostatized. Saudi Arabian money has been behind Islamic schools in a huge number of places. Saudi Arabian money has been behind several madrassas here in the U.S. They claim not to be terroristic, but their adherence to Sharia Law is Fundamentalist in form and it is but a short step from that to Sayyid Qutb's Jihad. Many have taken that step. So yes, the Wahhabi Fundamentalists don't advocate blowing anything up, but they are incompatible with Westernism. The cabby who refused to let a dog into his cab would be practicing Sharia Law that consistent with Wahhabism. Just because you practice Sharia Law doesn't mean you want to blow anything up. But the earlier cabby who reported to a Guardian reporter that he worked part of a year as a cabby in East London and the rest as a fighter against NATO forces in Afghanistan is more an activist of the Sayyid Qutb stripe. Lawrence From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Wager Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 7:05 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: More on Bigoted Muslim Cab Drivers Reading Lawrence's response, it occurs to me that I'm not making as much sense as I hope to here. There is a fundamental difference between fundamentalism and generic "radicalism." A "fundamentalist" is someone who takes all truths to be historical, material truths based on a literal reading of some particular scriptural sources. Muslim terrorists don't seem to me to be particularly "fundamentalist" in this sense, at least based on cursory reading of the Qu'ran. Neither do Christian survivalists. Both seem to be warped reactions to a felt lack of power couched in religious terms rather than a genuine religious movement. I was thinking about Islamic "fundamentalists" as those Muslims who would like to make the Qu'ran the foundation of law, not those Muslims who were trying to blow up innocent civilians. I could understand that a Muslim fundamentalist might think it reasonable (even if I see it as misguided) to try to institute Sharia as the foundation of law; I can't understand how a suicide bomber can justify their actions under any rational conception of Islam, and I see those who try to do so as rejected by Muslim "fundamentalists." Both fundamentalists and terrorists may be dangers to society, but they are different dangers. Lawrence Helm wrote: A small number of CF whackos kill abortionists without the blessings of the Church. As to McVeigh, I don't recall that he was a CF. He was politically paranoid. In the case of the MF the religions commands its followers to: kill the infidel if you really want to go to paradise. You've got to differentiate between actions the CF condemns and actions the MF approves. From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Veronica Caley Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 5:17 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: More on Bigoted Muslim Cab Drivers Regarding CF and Lawrence's preference for them over Muslim extremists: Or, they will set off bombs at the Olympics in Atlanta. Or, kill gynecologists who perform abortions, legally, and sometimes on ten year olds. Or blow up the abortion clinics and kill and maim employees. Or they will blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Or, verbally attack and incite against a moderate Protestant fundamentalist who urges caring for the unfortunate among us. On TV, of course, for maximum impact. Or the Catholic Conference of Bishops inserting themselves into government policy re reproductive rights of non-Catholic women. I am not sure weighing degrees of evil is a good way to think about these things. Which of course is best judged by the victims. Veronica Caley _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3284 - Release Date: 11/27/10