How do you define "fundamentalism"? For me it is that aspect of a religious belief which calls for absolute adherence to ALL the tenets of a faith.
Well, that's the million dollar question (okay, the thousand dollar question). Various attempts have been made to define fundamentalism, and there are various problems with all of them. It's one of those things that you just know when you see it. However, all of the following are typical of fundamentalism:
1. As you say, one of the central ideas is absolute adherence to all of the commandments to be found within holy scripture. In practice, this is seldom followed completely--the fundamentalist Christian who agrees that, say, the book of Deuteronomy is holy scripture will deny that it's necessary to bleed an animal completely dry before cooking it, or that it's necessary to ensure that the fibers of one's shirt match those of one's pants, and so on.
2. As a rather confusing corollary to 1, there is also typically a belief that holy scripture contains no contradictions.
3. Fundamentalists also typically insist that holy scripture be taken literally--the stories it contains are not metaphors or myths, but are literally true of history. Adam and Eve, for example, were actual people who lived about 6,000 years ago; Iblis is an actual being who physically refused to bow to Adam (for fundamentalist Muslims), and so on.
4. Fundamentalists typically deny the ideas and interpretations of mystical sects within the same religion. Jihadists don't like the Sufis, generally speaking, and fundamentalist Baptists find the writings of, say, Bernard of Clairvaux or Teresa of Avila heretical.
5. Finally, fundamentalists insist on their right to impose their practices and principles on others around them.
This complex of views is a rather recent development in the history of religion; it's the direct result of the development of secular societies in the West following on the Protestant Reformation, and then subsequent uptake of those ideas by Muslims and Jews. Fundamentalism in other religions, such as Buddhism, also seem to have arisen after contact with these ideas in the West.
Read some history, of Christianity and the ways in which the "True Christians" acted toward those they saw as heretics and pagans. It's not only Christians however, who have acted in this way but those of other faiths also. When religious beliefs became a central part of any culture, those who claimed to be the most faithful were often seen as the ones to follow, they provided examples of the way in which the people were supposed to live and believe.
Well, if all you're saying is that religious violence has been around for as long as religious belief, then sure, I agree. However, it doesn't take a fundamentalist to commit religious violence.
Now, time and time again in our modern day we have seen the stories of many who claim to be faithful believers all the while they are acting in not so religious a manner. Most recently, the Texas preacher who has called for the death penalty for homosexuals, who lost his pulpit because he was using church funds to pay for hookers and pot.
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that women should be allowed to enter the 'sacred spaces' in certain temples. Fundamentalist Hindu men blocked the attempts of the first women who attempted entry, saying females weren't worthy.
Yes, all true. And all the results of fundamentalism. The question, to my mind, is why. I tend to think that fundamentalists' rejection of mysticism is a rejection of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual depth, and hence they lack the tools necessary to actually live up to their ideals. Sort-of like vowing that you're going to assemble a car from spare parts, but then your first action is to give away all your tools and refusing to get any more. The outcome is guaranteed to be a disaster.
