See this link

http://sites.google.com/site/albijawy/

Hi albijawy. I see you've posted links to your site on other forums and blogs. That's fine, if you really are here to discuss things.

For openers, see http://www.google.com/search?h...t=title&ved=0CBkQkAE which provides a more conventional understanding of terrorism than what you've shared. We don't need that kind of terrorism. What you've done is conflated the understandings of "terrorism" and "deterrence."

I'm all for Islam as a religion of peace, as you describe it's true purpose. So may it be.

The problems of the selective "fundamentalist"
– and the "fundamentalist" who focuses on externals
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

You make a strong point about a "fundamentalist" being a person who adheres to "fundamentals". So far so good. While the two words are etymologically related, and you ideally are correct, matters are not so simple.

It is my observation that many fundamentalists – Muslim or Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Sikh – are in fact highly selective concerning which fundamentals they ascribe to and focus on.

For instance, some fundamentalist Christians might focus very strongly indeed on what the Bible says about homosexuality, and the "place" of a woman, rejecting for instance female priests and doctors, and considering female heads of state to be an abomination. And yet they might gladly ignore the Bible’s warnings about gathering riches in this world, warnings against "judging others", and commandment to do good deeds.

Similarly some fundamentalist Muslims may have an exaggerated focus on dress (such as the hijab), forgetting regional differences in tradition within the Muslim world, as well as the distinctions that are to be made between Muslims who live in Muslim-dominated countries and countries where they are a small minority.

In far too many instances the fundamentalist is overly focused on "externals", rather than on matters of the heart, mind and faith. Surely this is not what Mohammad, Peace be unto him, intended, nor what Jesus, Peace be unto him, taught his disciples.

In both examples mentioned above there may be strong psychological factors at play, be they misogyny, a fear of modern culture, an anger (rightful or wrongful, imagined or exaggerated) at the past "sins" of certain countries or peoples, or fear of the loss of control that comes with diversity and complexity.

A Golden Test is to ask whether the Believer has chosen their own Path, or insists that they have found "The Only Path".

In the latter case we can safely dismiss them, because such judgement actually usurps matters that can only rightfully be in the Hands of God.

Respectfully,
HeartPrayer

.

I don't think we'll hear from him, HP. There are many instances of his opening post around the web, and so it seems more about getting the word out than coming to dialogue.

You make some good points in your post, and I would welcome a dialogue with albijawy or any one else from Islam.

Another problem I have with the site he references is that much of it seems to be quibbling about the definition of words -- e.g., "terrorism," as I noted above. The same problem exists with "Fundamentalism," which the dictionary defines one way, but in popular parlance means something more akin to "legalism" and "dogmatism." It's one thing to be committed to fundamental principles, but quite another to hold to them so rigidly as to be closed to truths that do not fit. Ideals are one thing; ideologues quite another. We have these problems in all the world religions, to be sure, but the understanding of the Koran held by Muslims doesn't leave much room for linguistic or historical contextualizing. That is a huge problem, in my opinion.