I think there is a problem in defining a fundamentlist. Most people see fundamentlism as a
criticism, although I personally feel that I'm an
open minded Islamic fundamentalist. BUT (and it's a big but) that is not in today's society definition of the word, because then I'd probably be percieved as a
terrorist and I would like to think myself as the
antithesis of that.
A fundamentalist has generic beliefs based
literally on some
text or body of
research, and for me this is embodied within the
Quran. However, I'm open to
discussion about it, and if indeed it is
Proven with clear evidence that it is not The
Absolute Truth then I would re-evaluate my beliefs because there is no compulsion in religion (not mine anyway).
One can only
criticise someone for being a
narrow minded fundamentalist if they rendered themselves unable to accept a
reasonable discussion of their beliefs.
For example, scientists would be fundamentalists in the worst sense if they refused to accept that
Scientific Truth is
not absolute, and that all scientific theories are
incomplete and may be overthrown in time.
The reasonable discussion doesn't have to be
rational, since lots of important things such as
poetry,
art,
relationships etc. cannot be reduced to rationality!
Having said all that, I feel that I could have a rational discussion about my belief. So please feel free to enquire! :)