that old-time religion... not!

A recent Guardian piece written by Karen Armstrong called Unholy Strictures makes the interesting observation that fundamentalism is actually a new thing(bida) in the history of Christianiity and Islam. Even though fundamentalists often claim to follow the "Old Time Religion", it would be more accurate to see them as being part of a recent reaction to the influence of modern science.

Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.

We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia, in which the faithful look up facts about God. Many assume that if the scriptures are not historically and scientifically correct, they cannot be true at all. But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat); its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.

We distort our scriptures if we read them in an exclusively literal sense.

According to Armstrong, one difference which contributes to the growth of fundamentalism is the fact that, in the past, the scriptures were primarily performed orally and taught in context, in the presence of a teacher. But now, with widespread literacy, it is easier for individuals to (mis)read the texts, out of context, selectively for themselves.

I don't want to sound like an Amish caveman or anything, but it is important to realize that every example of "progress" in history, every step forward, typically comes with a price. In the West, some good things came out of the Reformation but it also led to a certain amount of chaos and violence as well. And in the case of Islam, it is traditional Islam (Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaat) the classical understandings which have been dominant for most of Islamic history, which are for the most part more tolerant and peaceful than the modern "reform" movements which tend to carry the label "Fundamentalist" who are involved in much of the violence giving Islam a bad name.

(ps. i found the Armstrong story from anarchoakbar)