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
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
s 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! :)