Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Muslim fundamentalist or a Jewish fundamentalist

  1. Jan 18, 2006 #1
    Is there any real difference between a muslim fundementalis or a Jewish fundementalist or christian or catholic fundementalist. Each is as blinkered and intolereant as the other which manifests itself in different ways. Is the message these people convey dangerous and should we be worried about this? The mentality of the fundementalist is if your not on our side your the enemy is this an antichristian mentality or anti abrahamic outlook perhaps would be more apt?
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 18, 2006 #2
    I wouldn't exactly say that the message itself is the dangerous aspect, but how it is conveyed and what the particular group asks of their followers. The tame fundamentalist groups only espouse ideas and don't try to enforce them through any means necessary. I'm sure there are a lot of Christian fundamentalist groups that disapprove of abortion bombings, yet there are still the odd number of militant groups that endorse such actions. The same is probably true with the Islamic fundamentalist groups and suicide bombings, but I do not know enough on that issue to draw definite conclusions.

    Stay away from the militants who fire weapons in the air :uhh:

    Edit: Actually, IMO the Christian fundamentalist groups who do endorse violence shouldn't properly be a "Christian fundamentalist" group, but rather they denigrate themselves to the level of common terrorists when they commit such crimes.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  4. Jan 18, 2006 #3
    The fundamentalist phenomenon
    as long as they keep their views to themeselves i dont have problem with it.

    thats the real problem, they think everyone has to think like they do and obey their god.

    but its not only the religious fundamentalists that think everyone should do things according to their belief - extreme ideologists often do so too.

    anyway, its mostly islam extrimists who use kidnapping, murder, and terrorist acts to achieve their ends.
    (though comunists in the late 19th and early-mid 20th centuries and the nazis managed to do much more damage then any religion extremist in modern history)

    (there are always maniacs from other religions, but their number is not even close)

    to be politically correct i must insert these quotes here, refer to extremist groups as extremist groups, and not fundametalist groups...

    for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  5. Jan 18, 2006 #4
    Why not direct this question to Mind & Brain Sciences or Social Sciences?
  6. Jan 18, 2006 #5
    I consdered this but the implications involved may have political social and behavioural connatations and a variety of other viewpoints. So I thought a general/political discussion thread would be more apropriate.

    Is there a spell checker on this forum I seem to remember there was one?
  7. Jan 18, 2006 #6
    On the other hand, it's probably to build a studied base of knowledge where your questions are concerned. It looks like the Politics forum prefers to ridicule fundamentalist than understand of their motives and variation through the lens of some scholarly discipline.
  8. Jan 18, 2006 #7
    That's the point I don't understand thus the question. I'm trying to learn more.

    For example In the Koran it is expressly forbidden to take the life of innocents or to do murder also it is forbidden to take ones own life. It is considered good to die for your religion but how do you equate blowing up a hundred people men and women and children with following or dying in the name of your religion?

    With Christian fundementalists what bothers me is that they force their children to co exist in a world that morally and ethically is more sophisticated than their own 5000 year old moral codes, they see no difference between the laws in The Old Testamant and The New Testamant even though they quite patently cotradict each other, they're unable to say that one set of laws was for a particualry society and time the other was for another, they simply say all the laws and all the messages are correct without exception? Now there are degrees of fundementalists some belive in Inetlligent Design(ID) others both ID and Creationism but all to me seem to be living in a delusional bygone ideal of what religion should be like?

    I admit I cannot understand how people can think this way, and I find many of the Ideas of Jewish /catholic/christian and muslim fundamemntalist directly contradict there own tennants.
    Even if Jesus is only a prophet we must say that his word is law to an Arab and it says in the Koran that we seperate not the laws of Abraham and of Mohammed. Ishmael his son is thought to have founded the first cities of what would later become the Islamic faith.

    So my question essentialy is this if we're all God's children then why is murdering God's children ever justifiable or for that matter forcing people to live under a moral code that has ceased to be moral or ethical for that matter?

    Fundamentalists bemuse me :confused: their inability to use even a mote of scientific reasoning and there own delusional rhetoric scares me, if they are capable of delusion on this level then they are capable of far more, whether English/American/African or Palestinian/Israeli.
    No spell checker huh?:eek:
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  9. Jan 18, 2006 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think you answered your own question: the manifestation is what differentiates them.
    The message itself is only dangerous if the message itself is hateful/threatening. Ie, some fundamentalists do odd things, but are isolationist. There is no danger whatsoever from such groups.
    I wouldn't say that. I think some fundamentalists are more closed-off and some are more, shall we say, evangelical. If evangelical means knocking on my door and trying to persuade me that I'm going to hell, fine - I can handle that. But if it means 'join my religion or I will kill you and everyone you know'.... that's not ok.
  10. Jan 18, 2006 #9
    Agreed I have no problem with fundamentalism per se. But when it directly effects communities or people in adverse ways I am bothered.

    If you want to live alone in a community of donkeys and be worshiped as Donkon king of the asses by alot of delusional people. fine by me, but when you finally go over the edge and lead your disciples to the next world I gotta say that's worrying?

    Islamic fundamentalists really do little to aid there own cause, if they want freedom from religious and democratic persecution and to live in a theocracy, that is there right, but to somehow think that blowing up your neighbour is a rational act likely to lead to this being achieved is about as rational as throwing a match on a patch of oil in the hopes it will not light itself.

    Very polarised and very evil people, not because they comit great crimes but because they calim that this is in the name of God when God said though shalt not do murder I took it to mean ever for any reason but obviously "martyrdom" if you want to call it that means it's ok. No it's not ok to blow up one hundred innocent people and it never will be. What bothers me is the damage this does to Islam which like christianity is about respect of other beliefs tolerance understanding and compassion. What on any Earth could delude people to believe that running into a packed night club and blowing yourself up is in anyway in Gods name? Honestly, how and why do these often intelligent and well educated and seemingly rational people fall under the sway of such lunatics?
  11. Jan 19, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Methinks this is the point a lot of people have difficulty understanding. I know it's baffled me. For a couple months, maybe even a year, following 9-11, there were quite a few attempts by various talking heads to get muslim scholars and religious leaders to equate the victims with "innocents," and it was striking to me how uniformly unsuccessful such attempts were. That is, the interview would be steered to the point where the TH would ask, "Was it a violation of the principles of Islam to kill 3,000 people?" The answer invariably was phrased, without reference to the victims, as, "It is expressly forbidden to take the life of innocents." There was never an express evaluation of the victims as "innocents," nor any equation of the victims with "innocents."

    Wandering around elsewhere in the Koran, Hadith, and Sharia, you'll find hints at what "innocents, innocent, or innocence" might mean in Islamic scripture, and my inference from those hints is that the state of "innocence" is not nearly so general as western thought, tradition, custom take it to be --- "innocents" are more along the line of obedient, infidel, slaves to Islam. That's a personal interpretation of a rather limited study of the use(s) of the word(s) in reference to 9-11.
  12. Jan 19, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    To get at the root of any differences and/or similarities, you have look at where each philosophy originated. Desert cultures are very harsh and fundamentalists in desert philosophies are the harshest. Spreading a philosophy to other parts of the Earth temper the original version somewhat, but it takes a long time for the differences to begin to outweigh the similarities.

    In other words, yes, there are real differences. It's just that there's even more similarities.
  13. Jan 19, 2006 #12
    Interesting:smile: You still have to overcome the scriptures in several areas, murder is still forbidden. Whether you classify killing thousands of people innocent or other wise in the name of Alah as murder is up to your intepritations. As is respect for other cultures and religions, tolerence, mercy, non violence, Karitas(or the love of ones fellow man) charity. You do to be a fundementalist have to ignore a wide swaith of your own Koran, it must take a few years to brainwash the people who commit these acts. There is a reason why muslims condemn these acts by fundementalists, well all but the hard liners anyway.
  14. Jan 19, 2006 #13
    Are you? When your questions are loaded with...

    ...it hardly comes across as dispassionate inquiry. Like I said, if you want to ridicule and admonish fundamentalists you've come to the place for it. Tear up just the right way, nod your head in shame and disappointment at the acts of the religious traditionalists, and wonder how nature could create something so ugly as true believers; you've got the makings of a champion thread.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2006
  15. Jan 19, 2006 #14
    What wouldn't earn your ire if it "affected communities and people in adverse ways?" What's so acerb about fundamentalism compared to...say...Bush-bashing or Avon?
  16. Jan 20, 2006 #15
    Well I need to at least prod people to get a response to my questions I can understand if I say explain exactly the fundementalist mind set it's gonna make for some imsonia cure. If you want to explain why it is fundementalism is the way it is, feel free to do so, My questions are deliberately loaded but then that's devils advocate for you.

    I think personally that the west is as much to blame for terrorism and fundementalism as are those who practice it, if we can for five minutes stop assuming that democracy at the barrel of a gun is the best way to enforce deomcracy(the sense of irony in that statement has not deserted me) Democracy is not the answer to the Middle Easts problem any more than Theocracy is the answer to the wests.

    That being said I still need to clarify at least to myself why it is this isiduous and anti abrahamic message gets to that stage. I'm trying to get inside the heads of the fundementalist. I'll say it again I have no problem with the belief system but sometimes blindly following your faith and dismissing everyone else as not"true believers" because they don't obsessively follow the two testaments to the letter will do your cause more harm than good particulalry if you start trying to force people to learn about ID in a science class or forcing your kids into outmoded social conventions in a wider community of "heretics" this can damage people I think.

    Far more dangerous is the fundementalist who uses violence to make a point. Does anyone believe that sending tanks into areas and shelling innocent people in the name of Israels rights is a good idea.
    Equally throwing yourself into a packed square of Israelis and blowing yourself to kingdom come may be the only solution to Israels military might in your eyes, but have you ever considered that terrorism gets you no where fast. There is always a political solution if your willing to compromise, yes these solutions break down but I hardly think either sides spiraling vengeance is any sensible solution. Ireland is a case in point all the IRA got was 50 years of death and bitterness, when eventually sitting around a table got them a compromise both sides could be happy with. Now I don't begin to understand the morasse of complicated issues in the Middle East which is half the reason for this thread, to get some insight. The other half is trying to get my head round other wordly fundementalism so I can at least see where it is they are coming from.

    Bush bashing is pointless I think Bush does enough on his own to make any attempt to bash him a waste of time. And I apreciate the irony in that statement too.:wink:
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook