One more thing I've been meaning to post

I am by no means an expert in Islam but would to share some thoughts based on my recent study. If anyone reads this and finds errors or misunderstandings, I hope they will set me straight. Here goes: In Christianity, the radicals are generally cosidered to be fundamentalists, there are exceptions but the connotation of a Christian fundamentalist is generally of a very rigid, fanatical sort who is intolerant of other belief systems, and of anyone whose lifestyle does comport with their understanding of the Bible. Westerners mistakenly apply this definition to Islam. All Muslims accept the fundamentals of the Koran, and all Muslims interpret as well. The Koran says that all humans are equal, Mohammed was a human, not a deity or demi-god. He was enlightened, yes, but not above other men, he is not the Muslim equivelent of the Christian Jesus. Since all humans are equal and since Allah is the supreme power, there should be no hierarchies amongst humans, particularly in religious matters. The Sunnis have no priests, they have prayer leaders (imams) who sometimes take on leadership roles, and there are religious scholars who also take leadership roles (this is a source of debate as to how much authority these people should assume) but technically, there should be no distinctions between human beings--no one can be above others and closer to Allah. Shia view things slightly differently and there is a hierarchy with the supreme religious title of Ayatollah. These men do interpret the Koran and explain to less "enlightened" believers. It would seem that Sunnis are the more "fundamentalist" of the two. In fact the rift between the two sects began with a disagreement over who should assume the role of Caliph after Mohammed--the Shia believing that his brother in law was the rightful heir. This suggests a belief in some sort of hereditary rule and that is seen by Sunnis as anathema to the religion.

All of this can be sort of confusing, and it confuses me, and I wish I could find someone to talk to about this, but that's how it seems to me. I will go look this up again and correct errors that I find. At any rate, the fundamentals of the Bible are somewhat reinterpreted in the Koran. The Koran points out that a day for God may not be a human day (24 hours) and seems to be open ended enough to provide room for evolution, a fundamentalist view of the Bible does not allow for this. There are other small differences as well. All this is well beyond my understanding at this point; I've probably just muddied the waters more than anything else by posting. I'm probably just writing about it as a means to work it out for myself--thinking aloud, if you will.

The point is this, there are moderates in both sects and radicals in both sects, but no one would say that they are not fundamentalist in their approach to the Koran, and yet, at the same time, most moderates do have a historical interpretation of the Koran which places certain verses in their proper context. The question is what does it mean to be "fundamentalist" in Islam, and as you can see, there are no easy answers.