How different are Christian and Islamic fundamentalists?

Posted by Joshua Holland at 1:43 PM on July 21, 2006.

Yesterday, I wrote a post, blatantly swiping Sarah Posner's work in The American Prospect, about John Hagee, an influential televangelist who's used his TV show, his books and an extensive network of conservative evangelicals to lobby for a war with Iran as the first step towards bringing about the Rapture.

It brought a visitor, a self-described "Christian fundamentalist," who took umbrage at the fact that some commenters dared suggest that Christian fundamentalists are just as … sane as their Muslim counterparts. It's a great comment, and raises an interesting question.

I know its superstition to you learned ones but…

Like it or not the bible does make very specific references to a war involving Persia (Iran) with its allies Gog (Russia) invading from the North with the resulting war leaving "blood up to the horses bridles". But be that as it may …

Well, like it or not, fundamentalists of all stripes believe -- to varying degrees -- in a literal interpretation of their respective holy texts. That's fine when it comes to Thou Shalt Not Steal, but is quite dangerous when it allows people to do harm to "nonbelievers" and think it's a righteous act. There are certainly examples of that kind of fundamentalism -- violent fundies -- in each of the "big three" religions.

This opening also makes it perfectly clear that there's no possibility for common ground here. We're facing an unshakable Biblical worldview, and that's that.

Being a "fundamentalist" myself (a much maligned group if there ever was one) …

Time for an aside. This comment is a perfect example of (right-wing) populism. First, s/he says "you learned ones," which captures the out-of-touch intellectual elitism that liberalism is supposed to represent. The implication is that our commenter, by contrast, is a more "genuine" American -- s/he may not have fancy book learnin', but, presumably, that's made up by an excess of common "horse sense." Implied also, is that those out-of-touch elite types are repressing noble commonfolk like our visitor -- our guest also wrote: "I know that you people love to villify "fundamentalists"- villfy hell., it is really DISCRIMNATE AGAINST us and thats OK."

It's a perfectly appealing message, perfectly divorced from reality and it's been perfectly effective for the past two decades in American politics.

… we do not believe, like the Iranian president who is invoking the "hidden Imam" that we are to "push" a war with Iran. We do believe in it's certainty but that these events will happen on Gods timing and not ours. Nothing we can do will make it happen sooner or later. But we do believe that it will happen and it will be a deadful thing.

Remember that this is a response to a post about a fundamentalist Christian who, unlike Ahmadinejad, is actively promoting a war to bring about the end Times.

By "hidden Imam" I assume we're talking about the Mahdi, Imam Zaman, the 12th Century Shi'ite cleric whose body was "hidden" by Allah and who, according to believers, will someday return to bring justice to the earth. While Jesus' return is a universal belief in Christianity (correct me if there are some obscure sects that don't buy it), belief in the Mahdi's return is limited to a minority of Persian and Indian Shi'ites.

What's more, the Christian version has Jesus saving the good believers and condemning the rest of us to hell. The Mahdi is supposed to return to establish justice on earth and rule benignly. As someone who is not an adherent of either faith, I'll take the Mahdi over Jesus any day -- I don't relish the thought of burning in Hell any more than the next guy.

Here's another difference. Hagee can go around calling for Armageddon, and it's no problem. Not so among Persian Shi'ites who believe the Mahdi will return.

Christian Science Monitor:

… while rule by clerics might suggest joy over a leader who believes he is divinely guided, Shiite religious texts ban all claims of such revelations and warn against "false prophets." The punishment for "fooling" people is so great, notes one, that "hell's fire and its occupants are crying."

Our visitor continues:

Uh folks (idiots) half of the national tennis team in Iraq was murdered in drive by shootings a couple of months ago becasue they insisted on wearing SHORTS that is prohibited somewhere in the Qu'ran!

Idiots? I thought we were "learned ones"?

… Leaflets were spread prior warning them to "put their clothes back on in the sight of Allah" and if they didnt they would die. Well they died.

Here, our fundamentalist friend demands a double standard. A large majority of Christian, Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists -- and Orthodox Jews -- are nonviolent. That makes sense -- all of the texts they follow preach nonviolence, accept under some specific circumstances.

The commenter wants us to judge other fundamentalist ideologies according to their violent minorities but not his or her own. Our guest isn't violent, but the KKK, Eric Rudolph (who bombed abortion clinics, gay bars and the Atlanta Olympics), the Lambs of God (violent abortion opponents who have shot doctors), Timothy McVeigh and a host of other groups -- terrorists -- are inspired by Christian beliefs. According to this commenter, they don't count (or they don't exist). Same with the flip-side: hundreds of millions of Muslims -- millions of whom would qualify as "fundamentalists" -- are peaceful, but they don't count either; Islamic fundies are terrorists -- whether peaceful or not -- and Christian fundies are simply following the word of God.

Is it any wonder things are so screwed up?

As for the tennis team being blown away in Baghdad, that's something that all decent people -- people of faith and people of reason -- find abhorrent. But using it as an example of the difference between Christian and Muslim violence ignores the fact that there's a major sectarian civil war going on over there. For decades Irish Catholics and Protestants went after each other for wearing the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood or whatever. I can't see much distinction in terms of how irrational that violence was.

… take a deep breath and you will see that the differences in Christian Fundamentailism is night and day from those who feel they will get non stop virgins (pleasure) in "heaven". Do Muslim women get non stop virgins too?

The deep breath did nothing.

And, no, Muslim women don't get the virgins because A) like all of the Big Three's religious texts, the Koran is quite patriarchical and views sexuality entirely from the male perspective, and B) it's unclear to what degree that whole 72 virgins thing is entirely bullshit -- like Jews drinking the blood of babies.

First, the number 72 appears nowhere in the Koran -- it seems to be made-up. Second, many Muslims have argued that "virgins" should be translated as "angels." (Ibn Warraq says that's nonsense; the context makes clear they're virgins.) Third, the virgins or angels (and a whole bunch of servants) are a generic description of "heaven" and not reserved for Martyrs. Everyone gets 'em.

But we may not be talking about angels or virgins at all; Warraq notes that in "Christoph Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran … tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic." Luxenberg's analysis, "leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields 'white raisins' of 'crystal clarity' rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins" -- he claims that "the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unsullied maidens …"

It's this kind of detail that's missing from almost all of our discourse about Islamic radicalism. By merely pointing out that the 72 virgins for martyrs thing is a myth, I'll no doubt be accused of "coddling terrorists" -- that's how a group of over a billion people are demonized.

As to the question of whether Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are similar, the answer seems to be: yes, within the context of their particular circumstances. Both believe in following a text literally and both are capable of violence. In countries like the United States, where there's a strong government, a political culture that reveres the rule of law and the ability, however limited, for groups of citizens to participate in the political process, violence is far more rare than in places where there are weak and repressive governments (and less education). But that's as true for Muslims as it is for Christians.

Anyway, I'm off to a ballgame. Fight amongst yourselves.

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.