Radical Islam

Lets not forget there is only one Islam , its up to its believers how to live according to it , there is nothing that ISIS does that is not written in the Quran, that is not an accusation towards other believers that want a more peacefull Islam , its a Fact that we should not ignore ...

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

i dont care that the quran has passages that promote violence

so does the bible, and yet very few modern christians will stand by the position that we should use deuteronomy as the standard by which to interpret modern religious obligation

to OP

my problem with "radical islam" is that the term potentially allows us to put everyone that we dont like into the same box

im sure there are plenty of isis fighters who actually dont like isis but have joined and fight because isis took over the land they live in and they dont see arguing with the crazy guys with the ak47s as a plausible option

i feel sorry for those, actually

but there are also MANY others who flock to isis basically because they really do like the idea of raping yazidis, tossing gays off of rooftops, and chopping off the heads of infidels and non believers

so, there is some variability of purpose and perspective, even within isis ranks

what it is important to guard against, imo, is the assumption that because a person can be called "radical" that they dont have legitimate grievances or that what they have to say should not be heard and understood

calling it all "radical islam" makes it sound like every muslim who is willing to fight for something is fighting for the exact same thing as every other muslim who is fighting, and this isnt the case

particularly i think we need to be more open about israel and palestine; about how that situation came to happen in the first place, and about america's unconditional and unilateral support of israel

also, we should have much more in depth discussions about the evolution of the various muslim cultures which are relevant, and about the motives behind western involvement and the effects that "our" involvement has had

not every group is the same, not every situation is the same, and there are a lot of different facets to the individual situations

backing solutions without understanding the specific instances and their histories is a great way to make everything worse, so anything which allows us to skirt in depth analysis of the particular circumstance is foolish and dangerous

that being said, i am perfectly content to label anyone who uses religious doctrine to justify violence against civilians as a religious radical; because thats what it means to be a religious radical

OB1Shinobi wrote: i dont care that the quran has passages that promote violence

so does the bible, and yet very few modern christians will stand by the position that we should use deuteronomy as the standard by which to interpret modern religious obligation

Modern is the key word here. The Islamic spring that has been occurring around the world has set back the Muslim world to medieval standards. I'm sure a fair share of people were crazy of the bat-shit Christians when the Inquisitors came knocing.

Most religions have historically had some sort of military aspect to it, reflecting the times in which they were created. The fact that no one takes Scripture literally is the biggest progress society has ever made.

Manu wrote: The fact that no one takes Scripture literally is the biggest progress society has ever made.

No one? I wish .

Jarid Calamus wrote: You would no more call a Christian who terrorizes an abortion clinic, a radical Christian, no more than you would a priest who molests children, or a KKK member.

I would call a Christian who terrorizes an abortion clinic a radical Christian. I wouldn't call a priest who molests children a radical Christian because his actions aren't condoned by any biblical doctrine, nor are the KKK's actions.

That being said, "radical Islam" is a poor term for Islamic terrorists. A better term is "Islamic fundamentalists", especially when referring to ISIS. Fundamentalists believe in a literal reading of scripture, and ISIS certainly checks that box.

Religious psychiatric patients dont care if we care about violent passages in the Quran/Bible/Thora they will bend and try to get out of logical discussions and try to implicate their idea of their beliefts ,like trying to force the Sharia on us or try to get the Palistinians out of Judea , or try to shut down abortion klinics ...i feel that when you believe in a G'd that is a very personal thing , for all others ...they should not even be confronted with it.

MartaLina wrote: Religious psychiatric patients dont care if we care about violent passages in the Quran/Bible/Thora they will bend and try to get out of logical discussions and try to implicate their idea of their beliefts ,like trying to force the Sharia on us or try to get the Palistinians out of Judea , or try to shut down abortion klinics ...i feel that when you believe in a G'd that is a very personal thing , for all others ...they should not even be confronted with it.

The root of the problem, of course, is not Islam. I think that is an important line that has to be drawn. The root of the problem is that we as humans have a tendency to band together into clans, where outsiders are perceived as enemies and the absolutist idea of "with me or against me" reins supreme. This tendency has been cunningly played upon by politicians and leaders of all sorts, religious or not. Because this political manipulation is so intertwined with the history of religion, it is woven into its sacred texts.

The degree to which people have replaced the "old" religions of monotheism, with the "new religions" of Constitutional Democracy and the Free World, with its sacred tenets of freedom, equal rights and the rule of law, is what is responsible for our modern world. It's not perfect either, but it certainly beats the old tenets of do-as-I-say-or-burn.

but it certainly beats the old tenets of do-as-I-say-or-burn.

"Do as I say or I'll give you a fine" doesn't have the same ring to it does it?

Manu wrote: The root of the problem, of course, is not Islam. I think that is an important line that has to be drawn. The root of the problem is that we as humans have a tendency to band together into clans, where outsiders are perceived as enemies and the absolutist idea of "with me or against me" reins supreme. This tendency has been cunningly played upon by politicians and leaders of all sorts, religious or not. Because this political manipulation is so intertwined with the history of religion, it is woven into its sacred texts.

I agree with you to the extent of your point about tribalism and political manipulation, Manu. Where I disagree is on tribalism being the root problem in the sense that what a tribe values culturally is at least a greater issue.

Tribe A believes in sacrificing their first born to a god. Tribe B doesn't believe in sacrificing their first born to a god. We could, based on what we know, make an argument that Tribe A holds unethical beliefs. We could also believe it to be due to tribalism.

Person A believes in sacrificing their first born to a god. Person B doesn't believe in sacrificing their first born to a god. We could make the same argument about ethics using the first example, but we couldn't about tribalism because this involves individuals.

What is the common thread? Ethics and morals. Islam promotes certain unethical and immoral beliefs. The belief system of Islamic Fundamentalists is what needs to change.

Jack wrote: What is the common thread? Ethics and morals. Islam promotes certain unethical and immoral beliefs. The belief system of Islamic Fundamentalists is what needs to change.

Biblical scripture also promotes unethical and immoral beliefs. You don't see people petitioning Christianity to change, just specific people or institutions defending their fundamentalist versions of the religion.