Whether the stupid and hypocritical theists like it or not, there is nothing actually extreme about religious extremism. What we call religious fanatism/extremism is simply taking a holy book as it is. The Islamic terrorists, that the so called moderate muslims are condemning and bad mouthing, are actually the true muslims. An Islamic terrorist is what happens when a muslim reads the Qur'an, digests it and take it as it.

What about christian extremists? Those that reject medicine for faith healing, those that are ready to be martyred(unlike the hypocrites of today ) etc. This is what you would expect if from someone who reads the bible, believes it and take it as it is.

These extremists are actually honest with their religious beliefs and are ever dedicated to them. To be a moderate in either Islam or christianity, you will have to ignore some part of the Qur'an/bible and that's hypocrisy. Moderates are never good examples of their holy books.

LOL

I think you seem to be conflating your definition of true religious adherence with religious literalism. The fact that someone reads a certain verse of the scripture and interprets it literally doesn't mean his interpretation is more accurate and more representative of what the religion stands for than someone who interprets that particular verse in a more benign form.
Most of the time religious literalism doesn't come from an informed reading of the religious text, it's often accompanied with a decontextualized reading of the text and an inability to understand the historical relevances that surround the text.

I think this whole case of Islamic extremism all boils down to interpretation and the Islamic ideology that animates this interpretation, because there are lots of Islamic ideologies and movements are built around these ideologies and these ideologies have lots of historical, philosophical and geopolitical influences.

The issue of Islamic terrorism isn't black and white. It's extremely complex and nuanced and I hate when uninformed people like the OP talk so boldly about an intricate issue they aren't well informed about.

Fekwa:
I think you seem to be conflating your definition of true religious adherence with religious literalism. The fact that someone reads a certain verse of the scripture and interprets it literally doesn't mean his interpretation is more accurate and more representative of what the religion stands for than someone who interprets that particular verse in a more benign form.

I think this whole case of Islamic extremism all boils down to interpretation and the Islamic ideology that animates this interpretation, because there are lots of Islamic ideologies and movements are built around these ideologies and these ideologies have lots of historical, philosophical and geopolitical influences.

The issue of Islamic terrorism isn't black and white. It's extremely complex and nuanced and I hate when uninformed people like the OP talk so boldly about an intricate issue they aren't well informed about.

bullshit. The holy books, the Qur'an and the bible, are clear on what they mean. Any honest and reasonable person should know that. I never spoke of taking the bible literally, instead I spoke of taking it as it is. Once again, the holy books are clear on what they mean, it doesn't matter the interpretation you give to it, what's important is what the books says.

Fekwa:
I think you seem to be conflating your definition of true religious adherence with religious literalism. The fact that someone reads a certain verse of the scripture and interprets it literally doesn't mean his interpretation is more accurate and more representative of what the religion stands for than someone who interprets that particular verse in a more benign form.
Most of the time religious literalism doesn't come from an informed reading of the religious text, it's often accompanied with a decontextualized reading of the text and an inability to understand the historical relevances that surround the text.

I think this whole case of Islamic extremism all boils down to interpretation and the Islamic ideology that animates this interpretation, because there are lots of Islamic ideologies and movements are built around these ideologies and these ideologies have lots of historical, philosophical and geopolitical influences.

The issue of Islamic terrorism isn't black and white. It's extremely complex and nuanced and I hate when uninformed people like the OP talk so boldly about an intricate issue they aren't well informed about.

Muhammed himself was a terrorist, a Jihadist, and Muslims are supposed to establish an Islamic Caliphate wherever they might be, and live by Sharia Law, because they shouldn't be living in societies governed and ruled by infidels and their impious VALUES. Are you saying it is wrong for Muslims to emulate their prophet, the highest examplar of "virtue"?

And if Holy Books are not to be read literally as meaning exactly what is written, who then decides the non-literal meanings of the verses? Anyone can just project their own beliefs on it and interpret it through that prism. It becomes a free for all---it can mean anything to anyone; whatever they want it to mean.

If some verses are only of HISTORICAL RELEVANCE, why were they included in a "timeless" book like the Quran, Allah's eternal and final message to the entire human race, that coexists with him in heaven? It only stands to reason that if the exact circumstances that necessitated those verses were to arise again in the modern age, then they're to apply the commandments given in those verses once again! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE IN THE PERFECT, INFALLIBLE HOLY QUR'AN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Martinez19:
[s] bullshit. The holy books, the Qur'an and the bible, are clear on what they mean. Any honest and reasonable person should know that. I never spoke of taking the bible literally, instead I spoke of taking it as it is. Once again, the holy books are clear on what they mean, it doesn't matter the interpretation you give to it, what's important is what the books says.[/s]

A Muslim who doesn't take the Qur'an literally is a kaffir!

Fekwa:
I think you seem to be conflating your definition of true religious adherence with religious literalism. The fact that someone reads a certain verse of the scripture and interprets it literally doesn't mean his interpretation is more accurate and more representative of what the religion stands for than someone who interprets that particular verse in a more benign form.
Most of the time religious literalism doesn't come from an informed reading of the religious text, it's often accompanied with a decontextualized reading of the text and an inability to understand the historical relevances that surround the text.

I think this whole case of Islamic extremism all boils down to interpretation and the Islamic ideology that animates this interpretation, because there are lots of Islamic ideologies and movements are built around these ideologies and these ideologies have lots of historical, philosophical and geopolitical influences.

The issue of Islamic terrorism isn't black and white. It's extremely complex and nuanced and I hate when uninformed people like the OP talk so boldly about an intricate issue they aren't well informed about.

You made sense!

mujahid777:

A Muslim who doesn't take the Qur'an literally is a kaffir!

if the Qur'an is to be taken literally, so be it. I am for taking it as it is. If taking it literally means taking it as it is, so be it. What I am against is dubious interpretation by the so called apologist.

Martinez19:
if the Qur'an is to be taken literally, so be it. I am for taking it as it is. If taking it literally means taking it as it is, so be it. What I am against is dubious interpretation by the so called apologist.

What 'dubious interpretation' by apologists.

ZandhaZaraZ:
Muhammed himself was a terrorist, a Jihadist, and Muslims are supposed to establish an Islamic Caliphate wherever they might be, and live by Sharia Law, because they shouldn't be living in societies governed and ruled by infidels and their impious VALUES. Are you saying it is wrong for Muslims to emulate their prophet, the highest examplar of "virtue"?

And if Holy Books are not to be read literally as meaning exactly what is written, who then decides the non-literal meanings of the verses? Anyone can just project their own beliefs on it and interpret it through that prism. It becomes a free for all---it can mean anything to anyone; whatever they want it to mean.

If some verses are only of HISTORICAL RELEVANCE, why were they included in a "timeless" book like the Quran, Allah's eternal and final message to the entire human race, that coexists with him in heaven? It only stands to reason that if the exact circumstances that necessitated those verses were to arise again in the modern age, then they're to apply the commandments given in those verses once again! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE IN THE PERFECT, INFALLIBLE HOLY QUR'AN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

But you seem to be focusing on just the bad aspects of the Quran. The same Quran has in it other verses which are benign and are in direct contradiction to the relatively bad verses that influence and animate extremist ideologies. So, if going by what you say that every muslim should adhere to the literal meaning of the verses, then it would be practically impossible for anyone to be a sane devotee of Islam because they'd essentially be forced to abide by verses that contradict each other. At the end of the day it all boils down to interpretation. There has to be some form of picking and choosing and concerted effort into deeper understanding, and I believe that's what the institution of Islamic theology and scholarship addresses.

ZandhaZaraZ:
Muhammed himself was a terrorist, a Jihadist, and Muslims are supposed to establish an Islamic Caliphate wherever they might be, and live by Sharia Law, because they shouldn't be living in societies governed and ruled by infidels and their impious VALUES. Are you saying it is wrong for Muslims to emulate their prophet, the highest examplar of "virtue"?

And if Holy Books are not to be read literally as meaning exactly what is written, who then decides the non-literal meanings of the verses? Anyone can just project their own beliefs on it and interpret it through that prism. It becomes a free for all---it can mean anything to anyone; whatever they want it to mean.

If some verses are only of HISTORICAL RELEVANCE, why were they included in a "timeless" book like the Quran, Allah's eternal and final message to the entire human race, that coexists with him in heaven? It only stands to reason that if the exact circumstances that necessitated those verses were to arise again in the modern age, then they're to apply the commandments given in those verses once again! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE IN THE PERFECT, INFALLIBLE HOLY QUR'AN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Gbam!

Fekwa:


But you seem to be focusing on just the bad aspects of the Quran. The same Quran has in it other verses which are benign and are in direct contradiction to the relatively bad verses that influence and animate extremist ideologies. So, if going by what you say that every muslim should adhere to the literal meaning of the verses, then it would be practically impossible for anyone to be a sane devotee of Islam because they'd essentially be forced to abide by verses that contradict each other. At the end of the day it all boils down to interpretation. There has to be some form of picking and choosing and concerted effort into deeper understanding, and I believe that's what the institution of Islamic theology and scholarship addresses.

when will you ever get it? People's interpretation is not important. What is important is what the holy book actually says. Terrorism is a pillar of Islam.

Fekwa:


But you seem to be focusing on just the bad aspects of the Quran. The same Quran has in it other verses which are benign and are in direct contradiction to the relatively bad verses that influence and animate extremist ideologies. So, if going by what you say that every muslim should adhere to the literal meaning of the verses, then it would be practically impossible for anyone to be a sane devotee of Islam because they'd essentially be forced to abide by verses that contradict each other. At the end of the day it all boils down to interpretation. There has to be some form of picking and choosing and concerted effort into deeper understanding, and I believe that's what the institution of Islamic theology and scholarship addresses.

Of course, there are contradictions, and that's where the problem lies. But the Quran is NOT the only thing a Muslim follows. It's both the Quran AND Sunnah (Hadith and Muhammad's lifestyle). So, none of it is inconsistent with the ideology and comportment of the Jihadists.

Plus, many of the benign verses are for relation BETWEEN Muslims---for virtuous behavior and comportment WITHIN Islam, and there are usually CONDITIONS attached, whenever Allah recommends them towards infidels.

ZandhaZaraZ:
Of course, there are contradictions, and that's where the problem lies. But the Quran is NOT the only thing a Muslim follows. It's both the Quran AND Sunnah (Hadith and Muhammad's lifestyle). So, none of it is inconsistent with the ideology and comportment of the Jihadists.

Plus, many of the benign verses are for relation BETWEEN Muslims---for virtuous behavior and comportment WITHIN Islam, and there are usually CONDITIONS attached, whenever Allah recommends them towards infidels.

You made sense!

I think you guys err when you study the Qur'an without its appropriate interpretation. Some verses can be correctly interpreted literally, some you need hadiths to interprete and some may require interpreting verses of the Qur'an with another verse(s) of the Qur'an. We need deep knowledge to understand Islam as the people it was revealed to understood it.

Rashduct4luv:
I think you guys err when you study the Qur'an without its appropriate interpretation. Some verses can be correctly interpreted literally, some you need hadiths to interprete and some may require interpreting verses of the Qur'an with another verse(s) of the Qur'an. We need deep knowledge to understand Islam as the people it was revealed to understood it.

bullshit. The same way christians will say that you need the holy spirit to understand the bible when anybody can read it and understand.

Rashduct4luv:

You made sense!

Thank you.

Martinez19:
bullshit. The same way christians will say that you need the holy spirit to understand the bible when anybody can read it and understand.

Who is talking about the holy spirit?
The Qur'an was revealed to people in a language about 1400 years ago. The traditions as at then would not be the same as found today. The English language in Shakespeare was applauded some years back but its archaic today!

We still have to go back to the way those who heard the message of the Qur'an understood it.

mujahid777:

A Muslim who doesn't take the Qur'an literally is a kaffir!

Says who?

Rashduct4luv:


Who is talking about the holy spirit?
The Qur'an was revealed to people in a language about 1400 years ago. The traditions as at then would not be the same as found today. The English language in Shakespeare was applauded some years back but its archaic today!

We still have to go back to the way those who heard the message of the Qur'an understood it.

The Qur'an is an ETERNAL, TIMELESS book that isn't perculiar to its time, according to Allah himself. It has co-existed with him in heaven forever. The message is clear. It is allegedly the work of a perfect, infallible creator; you can't compare it with the works of Shakespeare, a human.

HopefulLandlord, hahn, HardMirror, 1Sharon, Johnydon22, proudgorgeousga, akintom, adepeter2027, segunojo866, AgentOfAllah, Niflheim, dalaman, butterflylion, felixomor, KingEbukasBlog, bennyann, analice107, enilove, 0temAtum, catfishbilly,Nurvey, deicide

Kaderayayomikun:
The Qur'an is an ETERNAL, TIMELESS book that isn't perculiar to its time, according to Allah himself. It has co-existed with him in heaven forever. The message is clear. It is allegedly the work of a perfect, infallible creator; you can't compare it with the works of Shakespeare, a human.

I am not comparing. Just trying to explain myself with what was available yesterday but not today!

Rashduct4luv:



I am not comparing. Just trying to explain myself with what was available yesterday but not today!

Are you saying some parts of the Qur'an are no longer valid and applicable today? That they're archaic and outdated? That certain rules that applied to the Muslims of the past do not apply to the Muslims of today? Has Islam changed? Does Islam evolve?

Kaderayayomikun:
Are you saying some parts of the Qur'an are no longer valid and applicable today? That they're archaic and outdated? That certain rules that applied to the Muslims of the past do not apply to the Muslims of today? Has Islam changed? Does Islam evolve?

Where did i say such?

Who is talking about the holy spirit?
The Qur'an was revealed to people in a language about 1400 years ago. (Even a native speaker of Arabic can still erroneously interpret the Qur'an) The traditions as at then would not be the same as found today. The English language in Shakespeare was applauded some years back but it is archaic today!

In Summary:

We still have to go back to the way those who heard the message of the Qur'an understood it.

Rashduct4luv:


Where did i say such?

Who is talking about the holy spirit?
The Qur'an was revealed to people in a language about 1400 years ago. (Even a native speaker of Arabic can still erroneously interpret the Qur'an) The traditions as at then would not be the same as found today. The English language in Shakespeare was applauded some years back but it is archaic today!

In Summary:

We still have to go back to the way those who heard the message of the Qur'an understood it.

And how possible is that?

Kaderayayomikun:
And how possible is that?

Go back for Arabic & Islamic studies (Madrasah that teaches such)

Kaderayayomikun:
And how possible is that?

Are you minding Rashduct4luv? ask him the following questions :
1) did the Qur'an not say that non-Muslims should be killed is sighted by a muslim.
2) is death not the penalty for apostasy?
3) is Mohammed not a paedophile who tailored Islam to accommodate paedophilia?
4) is it a crime, according to the Qur'an, for a muslim to kill non-Muslims?

Many a times, when asked on TV if they support bombings and killings, the apologists and moderates won't say no instead they try to skip the question. They are all over YouTube.

@Martinez19,


You are so correct!!! The true muslim is the guy that CNN refers to as "deranged maniac"!!! He stones women, and beheads individuals as though his favourite book when he was a child was "THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN"!!!

Niflheim:
@Martinez19,


You are so correct!!! The true muslim is the guy that CNN refers to as "deranged maniac"!!! He stones women, and beheads individuals as though his favourite book when he was a child was "THE HEADLESS HORSEMAN"!!!

the moderates are the hypocritical shit heads who don't know and practice their doctrines. May Allah forgive them.

mujahid777:

What 'dubious interpretation' by apologists.

Such as claiming Jihad means "struggle" when it has meant war (or genocide) for centuries before now.

Martinez19:
Are you minding Rashduct4luv? ask him the following questions :
1) did the Qur'an not say that non-Muslims should be killed is sighted by a muslim.
2) is death not the penalty for apostasy?
3) is Mohammed not a paedophile who tailored Islam to accommodate paedophilia?
4) is it a crime, according to the Qur'an, for a muslim to kill non-Muslims?

Many a times, when asked on TV if they support bombings and killings, the apologists and moderates won't say no instead they try to skip the question. They are all over YouTube.

When a Muslim says "fanatics do not represent our religion," what does this actually mean? What religion do these maniacs represent, then? Afterall, they often quote passages from the Qur'an itself before they strike, so they are obviously studying the same literature as "moderate" Muslims. The difference is, they are willing to act on these grotesque teachings and moderates are not.

Though moderates will scream all day about how extremists do not represent them, do they ever actually seek to explain how that's the case... Or do they merely give us buzz-quotes, saying things like "Islam is peaceful. Mohammed is peaceful. Islam is love," and so forth?

A "moderate" Muslim caught defending Islam should be asked one simple question: Is the Qur'an perfect? If they say "no," then they are openly admitting that Islam has errors, hence cannot be the word of God, hence Mohammed was a false prophet, hence they are following a false faith, a total lie. They literally cannot say no. If they say "yes," then they are endorsing the nauseating passages in the Qur'an as being perfect, the everlasting message God chose to leave humanity with.

The moderate will usually say that the quotes are being taken "out of context." But, what possible fücking context could there be to justify all those bloodthirsty garbage?

Martinez19:
Are you minding Rashduct4luv? ask him the following questions :
1) did the Qur'an not say that non-Muslims should be killed is sighted by a muslim.
2) is death not the penalty for apostasy?
3) is Mohammed not a paedophile who tailored Islam to accommodate paedophilia?
4) is it a crime, according to the Qur'an, for a muslim to kill non-Muslims?

Many a times, when asked on TV if they support bombings and killings, the apologists and moderates won't say no instead they try to skip the question. They are all over YouTube.

I don't care whatever the majority of non-muslims say.

What i can authentically say from Qur'an and hadith is that:

1) the Qur'an did not say that non-Muslims should be killed when sighted by Muslims.
2) death is the penalty for apostasy only in a full Islamic country?
3)Mohammad (salallahu alayhi wa salam) was never a paedophile as none of his contemporary enemies call him that except nowadays' immoral nincompoops?
4) it is a crime, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, for a Muslim to kill non-Muslims.