|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
- 1 Untitled
- 2 minor change to preserve npov
- 3 Don't Merge
- 4 deleted 9/11 section
- 5 Extremism
- 6 Incorrect context
- 7 Orphaned references in Islamic fundamentalism
- 8 Free Inquiry quote
- 9 The article is very misleading
- 10 Quran's apes and pigs: To Jeff3000/Editor2020 and the so called "POV" charge
- 11 Addition to the Further Reading section
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)== 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  (towards the bottom of the section) for my reason why I think this is so. Azate 00:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 , which is simply another website on Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Islamic fundamentalism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic fundamentalism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "eu":
- From Hamas:
- Hamas is added to EU's blacklist of terror , By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor, 12 Sep 2003, The Telegraph. "The European Union yesterday put Hamas on its blacklist of terrorist organisations."
- Council Common Position 2003/651/CFSP, 12 September 2003 lists "Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)"
- Council Common Position 2006/380/CFSP of 29 May 2006 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2006/231/CFSP lists "Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)"
- EU Nations Agree to Freeze Hamas Assets, Fox News, September 06, 2003
- EU/MIDDLE EAST: HAMAS OFFICIALLY INCLUDED ON BLACKLIST OF TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS, Tuesday 16 September 2003, European Report
- Hamas is added to EU's blacklist of terror, By Anton La Guardia,12 Sep 2003
- BBC: EU blacklists Hamas political wing , BBC
- BBC: Hamas was put on the EU terror list in 2003, BBC
- Solana Denies Direct Contact With Hamas, The Moscow Times
- Mr. Solana goes to Damascus for some peace talks, New Europe
- From Islamic Courts Union: www.chinaview.cn (2006). "EU concerned about risk of war in Somalia". www.chinaview.cn. Retrieved September 9, 2007.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Free Inquiry quote
I'm not sure that's a very good quote in this context because most of the states on the list do not qualify as fundamentalist, (the quote refers to "Islamic states"). Plain dictatorships or authoritarian regimes operate in Syria, Egypt, and operated in Iraq etc. Although these regimes often employed an Islamic rhetoric, they opressed the Islamic fundamentalists in their own territory as much as other political opposition. But given that the rest of the section is unsourced, I'll refrain from removing it until I find something better. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is very misleading
Islam is fundamentalism. The religion is strictly monolithic. In other words, it is God's word to be followed and no others. I am getting very tired pointing out such nonsense over and over. This is a basic tenant in Islam. You simply can not make up your religion. Learn Arabic, and read books about Islamic jurisprudence, or books of fatwas, and virtually all of them cite proofs from the scripture. This point is a very strict part of the religion. The Muslims have such books that date back almost to the start of the religion, and you will find the same pattern. This is not some "modern phenomena".
Another point to clear, is that schools of thought and fundamentalism are NOT in contradiction with each other. They are like the different theories of gravity, where gravity is ONE, there can still exist different understandings. What is not allowed, is for one theory to be taken as a conviction when clear proof exist to its contrary. As long as this is not the case, we still have fundamentalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Islam is most certainly not a monolithic religion. It is practiced in different ways with emphasize on different elements of the religion across the globe.--Cbales212 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Quran's apes and pigs: To Jeff3000/Editor2020 and the so called "POV" charge
What is your charge of POV re: this? Isn't it pure text in the Quran of "tranformed into apes and pigs?" Is there another "view" on it? Is there another view on the Saudi funded schools in its home country or in the west of teaching that Christians are pigs and Jews are apes? Is there another "view" that Hamas/Hezbollah do "not" promote it? What do you mean by term "neutral?" between what and what exactly? Is there really another side to this and based on what source? Please provide a counter view before plain vandalism. finally, this page is about (radical) fundamentalist Islam, Is it not?Beutee3Colm (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do not accuse other editors of vandalism when there is none. Editor2020 reverted your edit and stated their reason. Please assume good faith. Tiderolls 06:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Addition to the Further Reading section
Some time ago I published a paper on Islamic fundamentalim in the European Police College (CEPOL) e-Library collection. (Kiss, Peter A. (February, 2010). Islamic Fundamentalism and Political Violence In Europe. Bramshill: European Police College (CEPOL) e-Library. ) Recently I inserted a link to the paper in this article's Further Reading section, because I felt that it would shed some further light on the subject. Some sharp-tongued critics objected to it on the grounds that it was self-promotion, and the paper had no relevance, so I am soliciting views on the subject - should the link be included, or not.--Peterakiss (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- see my comments at Talk:Punjab_insurgency#Addition_to_the_Bibliography_section, i'd rather not copy/paste them over here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)