<p>As to fundamentalism, it takes different forms depending on the religion and thus poses different threats to society. </p>
<p>Christian fundamentalism is mostly about denying science that conflicts with beliefs and imposing a moral agenda in a few key areas, notably abortion, homosexuality and punishment for certain criminal offenses. This threat is mostly political and is confined to elections and pressure groups.</p>
<p>Jewish fundamentalism, outside of issues relating to any peace deal in the Israel / Palestine area, is inward-directed and poses a threat almost exclusively to other Jews. As an example, in Israel the ultra-religious have taken control over conversion matters and recently over-turned, essentially de-converted Jews who had been converted by 2 well-known Orthodox rabbis. (That has tremendous consequences for their families because it turns their children into religious non-people who cannot marry a Jew under religious law.) As another example, even recently a top ultra-Orthodox rabbi said the Holocaust was brought about by non-religious Jews, meaning it was punishment for not following the Mitzvot (per the ultra-Orthodox interpretation). Never mind that almost all the Jews murdered were Orthodox. </p>
<p>In Islam, you have two different issues. First is that the numbers of extremely conservative, even fundamentalist Muslims is large, even very large, amounting to some hundreds of millions and that conservative, fundamentalist version is the state religion in important places like Saudi Arabia and Iran - though the latter is Shia, which is a very different kettle of fish. </p>
<p>Second is that Islam has a different call to universal religion than Christianity. Christianity speaks - see John - of being the exclusive path to salvation but Islam believes not so much in conversion as in world control. They accept the existence of different religions and the Qur’an states that a good Jew or Christian will be accepted in heaven, but they don’t accept that Christians (or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus) may have physical control of the physical world. In Islamic theology, often simplified to House of War versus House of God, Muslims must have temporal control and sharia law must be imposed. That is God’s will and the other religions must live under Muslim control, under sharia, and must accept their place. (This gets into dhimmi status and other complexities.) </p>
<p>These two pieces together make Islamic fundamentalism different. By contrast, there are Hindu fundamentalists - in the hundreds of millions - but their ambitions are confined not only to India but even within India to certain sites and areas which were Hindu and which became Muslim. </p>
<p>I have to note the Qur’an is contradictory and that invocations to kill are mostly in hadith, not in the sacred text. For example, the over-used imprecations about Jews are from these hadith - stories - about Muhammed, as are the entire true or not history of Muhammed’s dealings with the Jews of Arabia. </p>
<p>Another important point. I noted that Muslim progressives are few. One issue in Islam is that they are unable and generally unwilling to consider the Qur’an as a text, as a book that has a history. If you say it was not given directly by God to Muhammed and written down exactly then you risk prison, excommunication and even death in many countries - including in Malaysia. Christianity dealt with this issue over 150 years ago with the investigations into the sources of the New Testament. While fundamentalists have their often ridiculous and anti-intellectual say, Christian scholarship has dramatically advanced understanding of the actual material.</p>
<p>Jewish attitudes toward the sacred text are fundamentally different because, as I noted above, challenging the text to find meaning has been part of the religion for over 2000 years. </p>
<p>If you do research in the history of the Qur’an, you find very little by Muslim scholars. There is very little acknowledgement that the Qur’an wasn’t even written down during Muhammed’s life - and the general impression when the topic is discussed is that as Muhammed’s companions died (many in battle) and the number of memorizers shrank, it was then written down verbatim. Very few admit the Qur’an was a political project which was edited on purpose and that it appears versions were rejected - and if you read the Qur’an it certainly reflects the lack of organization, repetition and contradiction of a document which had to please a group with conflicting interests. When the sacred text says it is the word of God and is without doubt, it’s understandably difficult to argue otherwise. </p>
<p>I mentioned Shia Iran above. Westerners don’t understand the depth of difference between Shia and Sunni. It isn’t merely that you hold your hands differently when you pray or that you believe in a different line of Caliphs - look up Ali. One fundamental, unbridgeable difference is that Shia believe in the possibility of continuous revelation. The argument is made that Sunni admits interpretation through jurisprudence but that papers over the real gulf between a fixed revelation and a fluid one.</p>