Sociologi: William Shepard
Fundamentalism, Christian and Islamic
This article seeks to answer the question whether the term fundamentalism is an appropriate label for certain islamic movements by undertaking a detailed comparison with protestant Christian fundamentalism, for which the term was originally coined.
Among the similarities is a common opposition to modernism.
can analysing the similarities and differences justify a common label = fundamentalism
Fundamentalism refers to a movement in american Protestantism.
Curtis Lee Laws : we suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called fundamentalists.
5 fundamentals:
1) the authority of Scripture
2) the virgin birth of christ
3) the supstitutionary atonement
4) the bodily resurrection of Christ
5) either his deity or his second advent
the inerrancy of the Bible is important.
The fundamentalists may be destinguished from the conservatives and the evagelicans, who share much the same basic religious vision and concern, but may be a bit less strict on the specific 5 fundamentals above.
WS is inclined to recognize two uses of the term in the protestant context
1) a broader fundamentalism = less confrontational but share the fundamentals´doctrinal convictions
2) a more extreme fundamentalism which is very confrontational.
the two oldest and best known islamic fundamentalist groups are : the muslim Brethren and jamaát-i islami
the term has been used for the present revolutionary govenrment in Iran
WS have come to prefer the label islamic radicalism
The traditionalists are those who have resisted the westernizing tendencies in the name of islam
the secularists are those who have sought to clear the way for social reform
modernists have insisted that islam is relevant to all areas of life. + the sharia appiles to all of life.
fundamentalists strongly object to the modernists ´ tendency to westernize islam
+
object to the tendency of many traditionalists to tolerate and even cooperate with secularizing governments in practice.
Fundamentalism in the stricter sence would apply to those who are more revolutionary and less willing to cooperate with non-fundamentalists.
compare and contrast christian and islamic fundamentalism at three levels :
similarities
very important differences
mixed and often subtle similarities and differences.
both groups are viewed as intolerant and extremist (m.fl.) by their opponents.
A striking difference in the way the two movements are defined in their own context.
The Christian fundamentalists´religious concern with sin, salvation etc is of course explicitly rejected by muslims.
even a politicized christian fundamentalism such as that of Jerry Falwell would be secularist on the definition of secularism here used in the muslim context.
similarities:
both are consiously opposed to something that may be appropriately be labelled moderneism
Protestant: modernism has been generated from within the same culture
Muslim: modernism has come from outside the culture. = it is a much more alien phenomenon.
While protestant fundamentalism tends to be highly nationatistic, muslim fundamentalism consciously rejects nationalism as a foreign ideology.
both groups claim to be authentic expressions of their respective traditions.
protestant : it is the challenge of Biblical criticism that has hardend their position.
Muslim: fundamentalism can be seen as a hardening of traditional muslim views of the relation between religion and society in response to modern challenges to the social role of religion.
both tend to stress those elements that are most distinctive of the religious traditions of which they are a part.
The very fact that christian fundamentalists tend to define themselves in terms of doctrinal matters while muslim fundamentalism is mainly defined in political and social terms reflect the fact that christianity has the most strongly stressed doctrine while islam has been the most self-consciously political.
both see matters in black-and-white terms and claim to represent the one true way for all people.
both view many of their co-religionists as true christians or muslims who are somewhat muddled or lax in their thinking.
both want to take literally elements in the scriptures and traditions that their modernist opponents would either reject or reinterpret.
in both cases there is the sence that God has spoken quite clearly. The real question is whether humans are going to obey God or follow their own desires.
Neither type of fundamentalism likes to be associated in the public mind with the other.
both consciously measure moderne developments by standards drawn from the past and would like to go back to that period.
Back to the point in history before their society made its modernist wrong turn.
The state of society was far from perfect and must be subject to criticism in the light of scriptual norms dating from the founding period of the religion.
Both engage in educational and political activities and are pressing their social views on the rest of society.
Both have a moralistic or puritanical view of personal ethics + the wellbeing of society is highly dependent on personal morality.
fundamentalists have qiute willingly accepted some of what modernity has to offer... fx tecnology
Both appear to have a strong appeal to people with a modern tecnical education.
Both rely heavily on tracts, pamphlets and books for propagating their views.
Psychological alienation resulting from certain aspects of modernity seems to be an important motivation factor in both cases.
both find their main authority in a written scripture.
They DO have enough in common to merit a common label!
Both are strongly supernaturalist in theology and absolutist in ethics.
Because islam has been under external cultural attach in modern times and christianity has not muslims are more likely to feel the need to pull together.
Should we label this reaction fundamentalism? One objection that I see is its strong pejorative connotation in most contemporary academic and journalistic usage. they very deeply oppose this phenomenon.
It would be better if an alternative label could be found for the islamic phenomenon = islamic radicalism
fundamentalism is still usable for the protestant phenomenon
This article seeks to answer the question whether the term fundamentalism is an appropriate label for certain islamic movements by undertaking a detailed comparison with protestant Christian fundamentalism, for which the term was originally coined.
Among the similarities is a common opposition to modernism.
can analysing the similarities and differences justify a common label = fundamentalism
Fundamentalism refers to a movement in american Protestantism.
Curtis Lee Laws : we suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called fundamentalists.
5 fundamentals:
1) the authority of Scripture
2) the virgin birth of christ
3) the supstitutionary atonement
4) the bodily resurrection of Christ
5) either his deity or his second advent
the inerrancy of the Bible is important.
The fundamentalists may be destinguished from the conservatives and the evagelicans, who share much the same basic religious vision and concern, but may be a bit less strict on the specific 5 fundamentals above.
WS is inclined to recognize two uses of the term in the protestant context
1) a broader fundamentalism = less confrontational but share the fundamentals´doctrinal convictions
2) a more extreme fundamentalism which is very confrontational.
the two oldest and best known islamic fundamentalist groups are : the muslim Brethren and jamaát-i islami
the term has been used for the present revolutionary govenrment in Iran
WS have come to prefer the label islamic radicalism
The traditionalists are those who have resisted the westernizing tendencies in the name of islam
the secularists are those who have sought to clear the way for social reform
modernists have insisted that islam is relevant to all areas of life. + the sharia appiles to all of life.
fundamentalists strongly object to the modernists ´ tendency to westernize islam
+
object to the tendency of many traditionalists to tolerate and even cooperate with secularizing governments in practice.
Fundamentalism in the stricter sence would apply to those who are more revolutionary and less willing to cooperate with non-fundamentalists.
compare and contrast christian and islamic fundamentalism at three levels :
similarities
very important differences
mixed and often subtle similarities and differences.
both groups are viewed as intolerant and extremist (m.fl.) by their opponents.
A striking difference in the way the two movements are defined in their own context.
The Christian fundamentalists´religious concern with sin, salvation etc is of course explicitly rejected by muslims.
even a politicized christian fundamentalism such as that of Jerry Falwell would be secularist on the definition of secularism here used in the muslim context.
similarities:
both are consiously opposed to something that may be appropriately be labelled moderneism
Protestant: modernism has been generated from within the same culture
Muslim: modernism has come from outside the culture. = it is a much more alien phenomenon.
While protestant fundamentalism tends to be highly nationatistic, muslim fundamentalism consciously rejects nationalism as a foreign ideology.
both groups claim to be authentic expressions of their respective traditions.
protestant : it is the challenge of Biblical criticism that has hardend their position.
Muslim: fundamentalism can be seen as a hardening of traditional muslim views of the relation between religion and society in response to modern challenges to the social role of religion.
both tend to stress those elements that are most distinctive of the religious traditions of which they are a part.
The very fact that christian fundamentalists tend to define themselves in terms of doctrinal matters while muslim fundamentalism is mainly defined in political and social terms reflect the fact that christianity has the most strongly stressed doctrine while islam has been the most self-consciously political.
both see matters in black-and-white terms and claim to represent the one true way for all people.
both view many of their co-religionists as true christians or muslims who are somewhat muddled or lax in their thinking.
both want to take literally elements in the scriptures and traditions that their modernist opponents would either reject or reinterpret.
in both cases there is the sence that God has spoken quite clearly. The real question is whether humans are going to obey God or follow their own desires.
Neither type of fundamentalism likes to be associated in the public mind with the other.
both consciously measure moderne developments by standards drawn from the past and would like to go back to that period.
Back to the point in history before their society made its modernist wrong turn.
The state of society was far from perfect and must be subject to criticism in the light of scriptual norms dating from the founding period of the religion.
Both engage in educational and political activities and are pressing their social views on the rest of society.
Both have a moralistic or puritanical view of personal ethics + the wellbeing of society is highly dependent on personal morality.
fundamentalists have qiute willingly accepted some of what modernity has to offer... fx tecnology
Both appear to have a strong appeal to people with a modern tecnical education.
Both rely heavily on tracts, pamphlets and books for propagating their views.
Psychological alienation resulting from certain aspects of modernity seems to be an important motivation factor in both cases.
both find their main authority in a written scripture.
They DO have enough in common to merit a common label!
Both are strongly supernaturalist in theology and absolutist in ethics.
Because islam has been under external cultural attach in modern times and christianity has not muslims are more likely to feel the need to pull together.
Should we label this reaction fundamentalism? One objection that I see is its strong pejorative connotation in most contemporary academic and journalistic usage. they very deeply oppose this phenomenon.
It would be better if an alternative label could be found for the islamic phenomenon = islamic radicalism
fundamentalism is still usable for the protestant phenomenon
posted by uni at 11:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home