This might be a question of definition. He might not be a "fundamentalist" as that term is taken by much more radical people, but his equivalent in an other monotheistic religion would be labelled conservative, at the very least.He's recognised as a leading Islamic scholar. He mainly speaks for the Traditionalist perspective within Islam, in constrast to both fundamentalists and modernists/progressives.
So one scholar is more representative of a group than several Joe Average run off the mill members of that group? I did not say these people had specific (according to you, absurd) views, I said they were moderate, democratic and modernist to varying degrees but all more so than him, so alternative views exist. Why do you call that claim absurd?I'm sure you could. I mean I know plenty of Catholics who believe all sorts of absurd stuff too.
You misunderstood me. I was referring to your quote about the golden age of Islam and the connection between religiousn frameworks/establishments and science and the developement of new thought. The distinction between making fun and insulting is quite obvious. Tell one friend to make fun of you and another to insult you, I am sure you will know the difference.I'd like to hear your distinction between "making fun" and insulting, and how religious society somehow stiffle religious-based humour? Concerning Christian Europe at least, this notion is supposedly disputed by historian Michael W. George:
Have mercy, I am working while surfing the forum (i.e. can't consult many secondary sources right now) and you keep name droping and throwing quotes at me instead of giving me your own thoughts and analysis.Yes the typical intellectual impasse MacIntyre has written much about.