A criticism of Quranic/Biblical literalism
-
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNFEpj4igIM&feature=channel_page
-
From the video, it is the lack of relationship with the religious community, the institutions of the religious community, the traditions of the religious community and the history of the religious community. In this way fundamentalism is driven by negative factors, it is a substitute for real psychological relationships. Hence extreme beliefs in a 'holy' book are driven by a failure to find meaning in social relationships.
-
It's clear the guy does not have his definitions right. He speaks of religion/Islam and the holy book as if they are the same. Fundamentalsist never cared about "literalism" of the holy book. It's as Diem put it "All fundmentalists dream of going back to the "good ol' days."
They only revert to the qur'aan when someone challenges them with it. Otherwise, they are safe in their traditional Islam.For example, he speaks of "veil" as if it's an issue in lthe literal understanding of the holy book (whereas this word does not even exist in this context of "dress code", and explains it as a kind of "identity" to these groups of Islamists, and compares it to creationism to fundamental Christianity.
-
Clearly what they're being 'fundamentalist' towards is different from what 'quran alone' muslims are fundamentalist towards. But what he's talking about still holds. Fundamentalism isn't really harking back to any previous age. It's about creating an imagined community in the absence of a real one, and using the groups preferred set of scriptures, be they hadith, the bible, or the quran, as a model to create such a previously non-existent community.
-
Clearly what they're being 'fundamentalist' towards is different from what 'quran alone' muslims are fundamentalist towards. But what he's talking about still holds. Fundamentalism isn't really harking back to any previous age. It's about creating an imagined community in the absence of a real one, and using the groups preferred set of scriptures, be they hadith, the bible, or the quran, as a model to create such a previously non-existent community.
But tarditional fundamentalists believe that this model did exist and is not imaginary. If you say it's imaginary, they consider you blasphemous. They even have many stories about the most trivial detail of how they lived, ate, drank, dressed, went to the loo...They call themselves "usuuliyyuun back to the roots/origin" bringing the old context to their actual life
quraan alone muslims, on the other hand, dream of implementing a once existant quran alone society, but by reliving it in their actual societies, putting their contemporary life in context -
Fundementalism died away as a term for Muslims. It is actuall a word relevant to Christians and Jews since the scriptures were hand written by men. So fundementalist believed this scriptures are still divine. However for the Koran its not relevant. Islamist is the phrase they use which is correct in my understanding. Its a belief that Islam is not a religion but is a state and has a state function purpose that needs to be implemented by the state. Another words they believe Islam is a religion and a theocracy. Like communism.