Talk:Islamic fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Followed RK's advice and split this off as a stub article. -- Chris Q 07:31 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Islamism has become significant factor in world politics since end of the Cold War and its long-term movements may impact national and international development. It appears that, the word ‘fundamentalism’ is a general label for the Islamist current. The fundamentalists that are in the Islamic world have global vision because of their interpretation on the Quran’s verses. In other words, they want to dominate and manage the all nations and states in accordance with the Islamic rules ‘the sheri’a’. However, it is believed that, people can interpret the religious texts and books in different way. For example, Al Qaeda and Hamas are accepted as terrorist organizations by the West. They believe the same Quran, however their aims are different. In the Islamic world, many states take the Quran as a guide. In other words, religious belief have significant role for them to determine politics in the social and political life. Anti-Westernism has been increased in the Islamic world since end of the Cold war as a result of the Western politics towards to regime. The Muslims especially fundamentalists who want to apply all rules of the Quran in their social and political life do not accept the hegemony of the West in the Islamic world. Therefore, fundamentalists sometimes call all Muslim for jihad, ‘holly war’ which is a spiritual battle to defend Islam against its enemies. (Alibektas)

Moved here, since I think that liberal Muslims also believe everything up until the last sentence.

For religious fundamentalists of any faith, scripture must be adhered to without exception. Conservative Muslims see the Islamic sacred texts this way. Fundamentalists claim that the divine will is expressed in the Qur'an and Hadith in a perfect form applicable to all times and places; and that Muslims have a reliable record of that revelation, which cannot be questioned. Conservatives believe that no one has the right to disagree with or modify the the Quran, since it is the word of God. Fundamentalists would generally claim that their views represent is the purest form of Islam in that it adheres most closely to its 'fundamental' religious

There is a lot of inaccuracy in this article. For example, although I have now changed it, Imam Abdul-Wahab followed the Hanbali school of thought. He certainly did not reject the schools of thought.

Furthermore, the vast majority of Muslims, according to this article, are "fundamentalist". What Westerners see as a "fundamentalist" is more likened to an extremist. In Christianity, the two have become blended together, but most Muslims are fundamentalist in that they believe in literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith and believe in the Qur'an as the literal word of God. YusufMJH


This article sucks. Calling all editors...Timothy Usher 10:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merge with Islamism

OK well I've worked on this a bit and stripped out some of the most egregious crap (like European Human Right Court calls Islam incompatible w/democracy -I doubt it) -but as I've come across numerous sources which equate "Islamic fundamentalism" with "Islamism", I really don't see the point. We should just merge the two articles. Armon 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge! Though distinct phenomena, they are most easilsy understood when dealt with together. See my longish contribution at the Islamism talk page [1] (towards the bottom of the section) for my reason why I think this is so. Azate 00:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] minor change to preserve npov

I have made a very minor change in the Social and Political Goals section to avoid the assertion that "leftist ideologies" and "Arab Nationalism" are in fact discredited (I care not one whit whether anyone believes they are or are not but it's not consistent with neutral point of view to maintain they are while there is rational dispute).

[edit] Don't Merge

This article should not be merged. Many people want to have a term that they can link to regarding terrorist organizations and their beliefs. Islamism is not a preferred term for many Muslims on this site. We need to have differentiation in order to avoid heated termonology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Labaneh (talk • contribs)

The problem is you seem to be suggesting that we keep it as a POV fork. How do you think it is different from a fork? Armon 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
what about a redirect? Armon 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleted 9/11 section

I removed the entire 9/11 section. It began with a poorly written and highly PoV introduction to the events, and then was followed by a copyrighted text that was not allowed to be in wikipedia at all. Charles (Kznf) 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremism

Islamic extremism redirects here. Is this appropriate? –Pomte 03:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Radical Islam and Islamic extremism both redirect here, and not one mention of the word Jihad. This article is rubbish. Zardinuk 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate. Fundamentalism and extremism are two different things in most people's minds. There are many religious fundamentalists who could not fathom committing some of the vile acts done by extremists. I believe there should be an Islamic extremism article, and the fundamentalism article here needs to be expanded. There is much contemporary literature on the subject. - Cyborg Ninja 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem. These are separate terms. Is it possible to make a separate Islamic extremism article? --Cigrainger (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect context

In the section on women's rights, the quote that says that "the best woman is one who obeys" is taken out of context and should either be clarified or removed. The quote is lifted off of the source [15], which is simply another website on Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.223.205 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)