Like a lot of words, fundamentalism can't just be defined by a common-sense semantic reckoning. The word originally referred to anti-modern, literalist Christianity, but the definition has been expanded to cover similar strains in other religions. Moderate, when used in contrast, implies greater tolerance of divergent opinions not based on the one dogma. Unlike, say, hedonism or reformism, moderate-ism is not a dogma but an attitude, like altruism.

Yvonne Ridley, who I don't really agree with on much, makes a good point about these labels.

If you had a kid in school, and went to parents' evening, and the teacher said little Timmy was doing 'extremely well' you would be happier than if the teacher said he was doing 'moderately well'.

@Joey: I agree that the literal meaning of any of these words used (moderate, fundamentalist, extremist etc.) is unrelated to how these words are used in relation to Islam.

However, the problem I have with any of these terms is that there is no universally accepted defintion of what being a 'Moderate Muslim' etc means.

for example, some people will define you as 'moderate' if you drink alcohol, or a 'fundamentalist' if you have a beard. The problem with this (and any labelling) is that it means that we don't develop proper understanding of individual people (among a whole host of other problems).

"You" wrote:

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

salaam
[b]
salaf, what is wrong with democracy?[/b]

Its not addressed to me, but I'll add to the answer:

Its deeply flawed with a number of means:

1. Instead of choosing the best, it forces us to choose the lesser of two evils.
2. the people with the voice are not necessarily the best, but those with big business behind them.
3. why should the minority have to suffer the majority?
4. In the UK Anti-labour is the majority. Just because they are not united in one group, why should they be kept out of power?
5. There is no basis for morals in democracy.
6. The leader is voted on chrisma rather than competence.

1) Not necessarily
2) What does a dictatorship offer, then?
3) At least the minority can make a stand and get involved.
4) Labour aren't the total Nazi Neo-cons. Do you really think being Anti-Labour is solid enough to have power. The BNP are part of the "Anti-Labour"
5) There can be
6) They can be, striclty speaking, but not always.

Now tell me, what's so good about a dictatorship?

Never said there was. It is just another form of leadership. One that allows more abuse of position. There is always the chance it will be benevolent and less corrupt. Or it could be the opposite.

"Not necessarily" to number 1 is wrong. No party will be aligned to your needs AND wants 100% unless you yourself run policy (even then there is compromise). As a voter you will choose the party that disagrees less with your position.

Number 3 - The majority will always win. The whole point of democracy. getting involved is a fallacy, one made to keep people quiet.

5 - it is not the case.

6 - Since when has anyone ever won a popularity contest based on policy?

Democracy has it's flaws. Better get used to it. Otherwise Bush and Ahmedinejad should never have been elected.

Ahmadinejad barred hundreds of moderates from running and many opponents have been jailed or killed. How can that election be held up as an example?

"Joie de Vivre" wrote:

Ahmadinejad barred hundreds of moderates from running and many opponents have been jailed or killed. How can that election be held up as an example?

California/Florida/somewhere barred all convicts from voting. How can that election be held up as an example? (let's forget everything else that happened too. Not really important in this case)

Seriously though, did he bar them before winning his first election? How?

The Presidential run off was between him and that other guy. The smallers guys would not be much difference in the bigger picture.

I am not really too clued up about it and I don;t really care, but they do have a sort of democratic system. or not if you oppose the regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

in the words of Homer J Simpson:

"When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"

and also:

"All right, let's not panic. I'll make the money by selling one of my livers. I can get by with one."

so there!

"You" wrote:

Never said there was. It is just another form of leadership. One that allows more abuse of position. There is always the chance it will be benevolent and less corrupt. Or it could be the opposite.

"Not necessarily" to number 1 is wrong. No party will be aligned to your needs AND wants 100% unless you yourself run policy (even then there is compromise). As a voter you will choose the party that disagrees less with your position.

Number 3 - The majority will always win. The whole point of democracy. getting involved is a fallacy, one made to keep people quiet.

5 - it is not the case.

6 - Since when has anyone ever won a popularity contest based on policy?

Democracy has it's flaws. Better get used to it. Otherwise Bush and Ahmedinejad should never have been elected.

1) Maybe not 100%, but there is a chance that a party will be fair.
3) In a Democracy you CAN get involved and have your say, you CAN vote, at least you have a chance. In a dictatorship the police will come knocking at your door. The fact is people aren't quiet, someone always stands up.
5) Mate, in 1997 Labour didn't win because they flashed some money. It was because the public had more confidence in Blair's policies. And I got to admit, that if I was allowed to vote then I might have voted for him. Obviously times change and leaders get a bit more egoistical. At least we get a chance to get them out! In a dictatorship once a dictator gets into power, until he or she decides to got, power is theirs for good!

Of course democracy isn't perfect! No system is. We can change some aspects of the democracy. It's definately better than a dictatorship.

"Courage" wrote:

Of course democracy isn't perfect! No system is.

I think you are not aware of Imam Ali.

He was perfect. God designated him as the Master of the Universe.

"malik" wrote:

"Courage" wrote:

Of course democracy isn't perfect! No system is.

I think you are not aware of Imam Ali.

He was perfect. God designated him as the Master of the Universe.

Mate, do you want to tell me WHEN and HOW Allah appointed Ali to that position? As far as I know, no human, apart from Muhammad (pbuh), was perfect. And even he had the constant guidance from Allah.

"Courage" wrote:

"malik" wrote:

"Courage" wrote:

Of course democracy isn't perfect! No system is.

I think you are not aware of Imam Ali.

He was perfect. God designated him as the Master of the Universe.

Mate, do you want to tell me WHEN and HOW Allah appointed Ali to that position? As far as I know, no human, apart from Muhammad (pbuh), was perfect. And even he had the constant guidance from Allah.

...and even wasn't perfect either!

he made mistakes and his conduct is corrected in the Qur'an on a few occaisions.

He is not guilty of any sins though, like all the Prophets (peace be upon them all).

Only Allah (swt) is perfect.

"Ya'qub" wrote:

"Courage" wrote:

"malik" wrote:

"Courage" wrote:

Of course democracy isn't perfect! No system is.

I think you are not aware of Imam Ali.

He was perfect. God designated him as the Master of the Universe.

Mate, do you want to tell me WHEN and HOW Allah appointed Ali to that position? As far as I know, no human, apart from Muhammad (pbuh), was perfect. And even he had the constant guidance from Allah.

...and even wasn't perfect either!

he made mistakes and his conduct is corrected in the Qur'an on a few occaisions.

He is not guilty of any sins though, like all the Prophets (peace be upon them all).

Only Allah (swt) is perfect.

Yaqub, can I ask you something? Anyone's free to reply too. But, do you consider yourself to be of a certain sect? Cos I think that if you're a convert/revert you're less likely to say: "I'm a Sunni, Shia, Hanafi, Shafi etc" You're more likely to say: "I'm a Muslim, but I'm not prepared to just brand myself like that."
Have you ever been asked that?