₦airaland Forum

The intense debate in America and around the world about Islam is divided squarely between the group which thinks radical Islam & Islam itself are not so inseparable and another group which holds that the views held by radical Islamists, such as ISIS or Boko Haram for example, are not in any way shared by the vast majority of the world's Muslim population. According to the first group, the world is at war with Islam itself and the views it proposes. To them, central to the Islamic thesis is the subjugation of women (in Saudi Arabia, women have only recently in 2015 been allowed to vote, but are still not permitted to drive), the killing of apostates and infidels, justification of violence when central nerves are hit (the Muhammedan cartoons, for example), lack of freedom of speech and religion, non-separation of church and state, and a whole other unpalatable viewpoints that stand almost in contrast to established, progressive western thoughts. It thus follows that militant Islamists borrow from these ideas to drive their points home. They argue that radical Islamists, such as ISIS, are merely executing the central beliefs surrounding Islam when they go on their killing sprees, execute homosexuals or threaten Yazidi christians ("infidels" ) with death in a bid to convert them to Islam. The US TV Host, Bill Maher is a prime example of people who hold this view; so are Ayan Hirsi Ali (a former muslim, now turned atheist), Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, to some extent Salman Rushdie and a host other liberal, intelligent voices.

The other group, on the other hand, denies that Islam itself has anything to do with militant Islam. They maintain that militant Islamists are no different from other religious fundamentalists who seek to interpret their religious books as literally as they could. They draw a separation between other practicing Muslims and these Muslim fundamentalists. To this end, they compare Islamic fundamentalists with, say, Christian fundamentalists who kill abortion doctors or those who fight violently against freedom of sexual associations. To this other group, the vast majority of Muslims are generally humble, homely and do not share regressive ideas; these Muslims oppose radical Islamists and would have nothing to do with the ideas these radicalists espouse. Islam, therefore to them, is indeed a religion of peace which seeks to habit in harmony with other religious ideas, dialogue with them and hope that they can reciprocate in kind and faith. Among the proponents of this other idea about Islam are many political leaders; Barack Obama, Cameron, Merkel are chief examples. Also are a couple other liberals in America, including many of those who work in the mainstream media (Wolf Blitzer, Amanpour, etc).

The first group accuses the second group of not facing the facts and of just being political correct in their assessment of Islam, while the second group accuses the first of harbouring extremist views (equally as disturbing as those championed by radicalists, only this time on the other extreme).

Personally, I side with the first group, but I'd like to know what you guys think. Is there really a connecting tissue between Islam and radical Islam?

there is no connection in reality.

The quick answer is that, yes, extremists can certainly link themselves to Islam, just as violent Christians can as well. Both religions have so many scriptures that there are internal contradictions, so that peaceful Muslims can be said to be following Islam, as can violent Muslims. Everyone picks and chooses the parts of the religion they like and ignores the parts they don't like or find inconvenient. In addition, Muslims are forbidden to declare other Muslims to be non-Muslims, so if someone says that they are Muslim, then they are.

So, its easier for you to type connecting tissue, than it is for you to type connected or connection?


Oversabi.

RoyPCain:
there is no connection in reality.

Good to hear your view. Care to give an explanation?

onetrack:
The quick answer is that, yes, extremists can certainly link themselves to Islam, just as violent Christians can as well. Both religions have so many scriptures that there are internal contradictions, so that peaceful Muslims can be said to be following Islam, as can violent Muslims. Everyone picks and chooses the parts of the religion they like and ignores the parts they don't like or find inconvenient. In addition, Muslims are forbidden to declare other Muslims to be non-Muslims, so if someone says that they are Muslim, then they are.

I kinda agree with you about everyone picking and choosing. But don't you think this violence is more associated with Islam than with other religions?

tpiadotcom:
So, its easier for you to type connecting tissue, than it is for you to type connected or connection?


Oversabi.

Okay, I'll just ignore this as it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

@goofyone(m): 10:48pm On Apr 19

RoyPCain:
there is no connection in reality.

Good to hear your view. Care to give an explanation?

extremism is not permitted in Islam. in fact, neither is complete liberalism. what i expected of Muslims by Islam is moderation. killing of innocent, going beyond the limit in battle, refusing to accept the surrender of the enemy, etc and not being merciful are actions of the khawarijites, the very people i assume you are calling extremists, these actions are not within Islam of Muhammad [SA].

preservation of life is what Islam preaches, not sniffing out life. forgiveness is Islam, not revenge/vengeance.

Read what the jihadists read to see the "connecting tissue" and that book is the quran

Qur'an (9:29)-"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


"it is NOT fitting for the prophet and those who believe that they should pray for forgiveness for pagans, even though they be kin(family)...", sura 9 ayah 113.


Qur’an 8:12— Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

They believe a fraud who even says he can't guide anyone.
Surah 72:21: Say, “I possess no
power to harm you, nor to guide
you.” (Khalifa)
“It is not in my power to cause you
harm, or to bring you to the Right
Path.” (Hilali-Khan)
Do you really understand the gravity of
Muhammad’s statement when he said, “I possess no power to guide you” or “to
bring you to the Right Path”? Is it not a
prophet’s duty to guide the congregation of God to the “Right Path”? Can you now depend on this man to guide you to salvation? Would it be wise for you to do so?

goofyone:
Okay, I'll just ignore this as it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Correct your thread title.

Not to mention you are in the wrong section.

arnoud van doorn of netherland who used to be a staunch islamophobe did read what 'ifeann called jihadist read'.
here is the dutch man worse than you ifeann because he is in his native country and was powerful with crazies like you supporting him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtNkDLnumE





Allah defeats evildoers. if you remain in your mindset, you will be one of those who got defeated and there will never, and i repeat never be any honor left or attached with your memory. most people will mention your name and mention what follows pharaoh or abujahal, abulahab, hitler, etc.

good night.

Radical Islamists would argue that they follow the hadiths to the letter.

Moderate muslims cherry pick that which is most convenient.

It's all a big con game at the end of the day.

RoyPCain:
arnoud van doorn of netherland who used to be a staunch islamophobe did read what 'ifeann called jihadist read'.
here is the dutch man worse than you ifeann because he is in his native country and was powerful with crazies like you supporting him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtNkDLnumE





Allah defeats evildoers. if you remain in your mindset, you will be one of those who got defeated and there will never, and i repeat never be any honor left or attached with your memory. most people will mention your name and mention what follows pharaoh or abujahal, abulahab, hitler, etc.

good night.

I understand your point, Roy. I was gonna ask though: is it within Islam to punish those who disrespect its prophet with death? Now i just wanna take it one after the other.

no because the prophet [SA] did not do that to anyone.
please do understand that Muhammad [SA] was a man. then a prophetic messenger [SA].
punishing somebody that insulted Muhammad {SA] alone was not done.

all punishment were done because there was additional offense committed in each case. it was this additional commitment that punishment was metered.

the jew woman was forgiven for poisoning. but when the companion died because of the poison ingested, she was killed according to the law of retaliation. the enemies ignore the death of the companion [RA], but focused on the event itself and it was the event that they based all their dubious conclusions.