Radical Islam

This has been bothering me for some time now. It seems that the new thing for my generation to fear is Terrorism and "Radical Islam." What bothers me most is how people are embracing this term, as if ISIS is a sort of form of Islam. I believe that it is not. These people are not practicing the basic tenants of the religion of Peace. These people are terrorists. 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. These people are not practising christianity. A Muslim is not Islam, A Christian is not Christianity a Jew is not Judaism, and yet they are. We tend to associate things in this manner. Pope Francis is not Catholicism, and yet he is, he is what many think of. Yet many more people this of the few priests who were falsely wearing their robes when they hear the words "priest" or "Catholic." These terrorists are not Islam, yet many people are unfortunate enough to be fooled into believing that Islam promotes violence.

There is a new type of bigotry happening today because of things like this. People are being disparaged because they possess faith in something other than the ego. In most cases it is God, but not all. The antitheistic bigots espoused hateful remarks at those possessed of faith, and use the worst examples of any religion to champion Thierry hate. It is wrong and harmful to the human species. Without religion we would not have modern medicine, philosophy, mathematics, or architecture. All the good religion has done the world and the focus is on the negative actions of extremists hiding amongst and preying upon the faithful. People with the ego fully in control who fail to see the forest for the trees. I have seen people mocked for thanking God when a child's sight was restored from a successful surgery. As if her thanks in the divine somehow cheapens the skill of the surgical team or demeans the donors who funded the surgery.

The movement is gaining ground and being espoused by people of fame (most notably Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry). People who claim to be atheistic yet are antitheistic. Gervais once said "Thinking I hate people with religion because I hate religion is like saying I hate people with cancer because I hate cancer." Yet what he fails to see is that the Christian is Christianity as much as he believes his faith he is his faith. We are Jedi and Jediism. People like Fry and Gervais are often ignorant of the core truths of all religions, and thus confuse, as even many faithful do, the myth and the metaphor for the actual truth. For language is clumsy, and cannot accurately describe the Force, so we use our metaphors for it. They are antitheists tricked by their own ego into separatism from their fellow man.

There may be a time when our movement is brought into the spotlight. A time when a Jedi is also a person of some fame. Or when our movement becomes vastly popular. When this happens I hope we can all support that brother or sister, and our religion.

I'm fairly certain that ISIS members consider themselves to follow Islam, that Christian terrorists consider themselves to be Christian, Jewish terrorists consider themselves to be Jews, etc.
I don't think we should avoid calling radical Islam what it is: a radical, extreme position taken in favor of Islam over its alternatives. Terrorism isn't the only aspect of radical Islam. Shariah law is another. I heard recently somewhere that 51% of Muslims in the USA are in favor of shariah law. I think there was some survey which pointed that out, I found it through this article . It also states that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

I would describe that as a position from radical Islam, in this case a majority of Muslims in this country take that first position. Actually, they support Muslims in the US being able to be tried under shariah law rather than the laws of the USA specifically, which is arguably an even worse stance. I don't think that supporting shariah law should be considered terrorism, but that it should be considered a radical position within Islam, or radical Islam for short. After all, shariah law IS part of Islamic ideology, and is inseparable from it as an issue.

Unfortunately, many passages of the Quran are explicitly violent against those who do not follow Islam. So saying that a literal interpretation of Islam makes for a religion of peace is misguided.

The same goes for Christianity, many parts of the Bible have been used to justify slavery, war, misogyny, homophobia, witch-burning, etc. The good thing is that the percentage of people who take the Bible literally nowadays is small.

Of course it makes no sense to toss out the baby with the bath water, but most scientific and humanitarian progress in the world that you claim religion is responsible for has come from the religious and laymen who did not take Holy texts at face value.

As for your comment on atheism, the "group" suffers the same fate as all groups: there are always black sheep, and they are usually the one's stirring up the rest into appropriating a movement in a negative way; that's how the original and well-intentioned feminism gets turned into feminazis, the well-intentioned atheists who simply don't believe but are respectful of others turn into the militant anti-religion jerks, etc.

There are jerks in all types of groups. Islam is not the exception. But the unique nature of ISIS is facilitated by a radical take on Islam, and I don't think we should disregard that fact just for the sake of political correctness.

Jarid Calamus wrote: What bothers me most is how people are embracing ["radical Islam"], as if ISIS is a sort of form of Islam. I believe that it is not. These people are not practicing the basic tenants of the religion of Peace.

As no representative of Islam it is of course not up to me to decide what either those tenets are or who is practicing them and to what extent. I do not necessarily think that any one Muslim is in any position to declare that for all of his or her brethren either. I can thus only ever judge Islam by its alleged fruits, never on its own. I cannot read people's minds. When a radicalized person names Islam as their most fundamental motivation, I have no way of falsifying that. In so far as I can assume they are being sincere (i.e. not sarcastic or facetious), I must understand that statement as incorrigible. Whether Islam as an ideology explicitly demands their actions from them or only serves as a justification, it is part of the problem in both cases. Would that person be motivated by something else, if they didn't buy into Islam? Would they be able to find an alternate justification, if so? If at the same time I meet a moderate Muslim who justifies their love of peace and tolerance through Islam, I cannot help but wonder if they'd be anywhere near this pleasant were it not for their religion. If they wouldn't, then I think they need help regardless of whether their religion already provides that. And if they would, I think they should be giving themselves more credit for that and not think of themselves as vermin only barely suitable as serfs to their god.

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 wouldn't? Why not? Also, would you call a gay person who fancies themselves a Christian a True Christian™?

These people are not practising christianity. [sic]

Well, I'm no Christian either, and I wouldn't get to decide that even if I were. Replace everything I said about Islam in the first paragraph with the matching Christian terms, I'm too lazy to say the same stuff again...

A Muslim is not Islam, A Christian is not Christianity a Jew is not Judaism, and yet they are...

Wait, so is your objection to generalizations or to unfavourable opinions of Islam? Because I don't think of any one person or group of people as their religion, I think of them as people. If what they came to believe for good or bad reasons is a collection of sickeningly evil and frankly ridiculous ideas, I think that's a pity and if I could I'd gladly try and help them rid themselves of it, if I can survive that. I don't see why I ought to draw conclusions about their fellow believers with regards to anything but their common beliefs from just what I observe in them.

These terrorists are not Islam, yet many people are unfortunate enough to be fooled into believing that Islam promotes violence.

People are people, ideas are ideas. The terrorists are not Islam any more than chairs are driving lessons. Whether Islam promotes violence is up to the Muslims as faith communities or their authority figures or both. The Qur'an however does promote conquest and holy war, subjugation of the people of the book and extermination of heathens and don't get me started on the family values. The Hadith are generally more vicious still, irrespective of how canon the collection you read from.

There is a new type of bigotry happening today because of things like this. People are being disparaged because they possess faith in something other than the ego. In most cases it is God, but not all. The antitheistic bigots espoused hateful remarks at those possessed of faith, and use the worst examples of any religion to champion Thierry [sic] hate.

It is not our fault that the religious insist to make their religion part of their identity, to the point where if you dare criticize an idea, they understand it as an attack on their person. This is of course not to say that there aren't plenty outspoken hate-mongerers on both sides who will target the person and I would caution people against doing so lest they give their own side a bad reputation, to say nothing of the damage they could do in the process. But if I were to choose from two evils, I'd much rather live in a world where everybody keeps cussing and insulting people than in one where everybody must not criticize any idea no matter how dumb.

It is wrong and harmful to the human species. Without religion we would not have modern medicine, philosophy, mathematics, or architecture.

I could keep this at a simple how dare you insult humanity like that... Religion did nothing but stand in the way of every kind of progress, be it science, philosophy, or engineering, since its inception and to this very day. With these things developing underground, often times forbidden or suppressed by the local religious establishment, how dare you indeed assert that we owe anything to the one kind of establishment that to this day keeps trying to take away what we struggled so much to gain.

All the good religion has done the world and the focus is on the negative actions of extremists hiding amongst and preying upon the faithful.

Didn't you earlier imply that what ever evil happens, it is not due to any religion? How can we focus on the bad of religion when it only ever spawns good? Or rather, how is this anything but an admission that there is a problem, along with a plea to ignore it?

I have seen people mocked for thanking God when a child's sight was restored from a successful surgery. As if her thanks in the divine somehow cheapens the skill of the surgical team or demeans the donors who funded the surgery.

It does. The people who donated put actual work into the money that helped the child. The surgeon took one of the most challenging and most stressful career choices and studied for years only to help people and to take all the blame for every case when they couldn't. The god the mother was thanking did nothing to magic the child healthy without people sweating and bleeding on its behalf, and keeps sitting idly by when ever another child's operation fails and when ever any other child dies in agony. Whether mocking the ungrateful [censored] is appropriate is a whole different matter, of course, but her thanking the one thing that had nothing to do with the success over all of the people who did is far more distasteful than any mockery she might have to endure.

The movement is gaining ground and being espoused by people of fame (most notably Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry). People who claim to be atheistic yet are antitheistic.

I'm both. I think not only that the supernatural claims of religion are false to the extent to which they are at all testable and unfounded to every other extent, but also that it is harmful to the believers and their fellow earthlings. I think mankind would be better off without religion. Is there an issue with that position?

Gervais once said "Thinking I hate people with religion because I hate religion is like saying I hate people with cancer because I hate cancer." Yet what he fails to see is that the Christian is Christianity as much as he believes his faith he is his faith. We are Jedi and Jediism.

Who was it that said that a Christian is not Christianity, a Jew not Judaism and a Muslim not Islam? Do you want us to differentiate between people and their ideas or do you want us to consider them one? Make up your mind!

People like Fry and Gervais are often ignorant of the core truths of all religions, and thus confuse, as even many faithful do, the myth and the metaphor for the actual truth. For language is clumsy, and cannot accurately describe the Force, so we use our metaphors for it. They are antitheists tricked by their own ego into separatism from their fellow man.

I cannot speak for either Mr. Fry or Mr. Gervais, but I can assure you that even with Campbell I still find little core truths of all religion. Again, not speaking for comedians, who's job it is to be edgy and keep people entertained, but it is not the "this is all metaphor for the fundamentals of our humand condition" folks I for one tend to object to. I might think that they could be spending their brain power on more productive and sophisticated and perhaps even more profound ponderings than that, and while one can say that wastefulness is harmful to some extent, I think we have bigger fish to fry than policing what people are thinking in their private hours. As for encouraging separation, I think that's more of a hallmark of religions, all of which without exception have a groupthink problem. I don't have a book telling me that who ever does not believe as I do will be annihilated or tormented for all time. I do not have a trusted teacher who tells me that the teacher from the neighboring village over the hills leads people astray and into the devil's embrace. I do not come here myself to preach how ISIS are not true Muslims or how they are in any way lesser people only because they believe or do evil things. I don't separate people into boxes labeled by the flavour of nonsense they believe nor do I have a box for those who don't that is made of wood and not of cardboard. Religion is a symptom and very often a catalyst for tribalism in a way irreligion isn't. That's why regardless of how I feel comparing myself to someone else, I can never expect the same results when comparing two other people one of whom happens to share this one thing with me. This kind of self-righteousness is not something very typical for or common with non-religion.

Manu wrote: Unfortunately, many passages of the Quran are explicitly violent against those who do not follow Islam. So saying that a literal interpretation of Islam makes for a religion of peace is misguided.

Cite sources?

steamboat28 wrote:

Manu wrote: Unfortunately, many passages of the Quran are explicitly violent against those who do not follow Islam. So saying that a literal interpretation of Islam makes for a religion of peace is misguided.

Cite sources?

2:191
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

2:216
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not."

9:5
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

9:29
"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

9:123
"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."

In case anyone is wondering about the martyrdom or beheading thing:
47:4
"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain."

And one specifically ordering Mohammed:
66:9
"O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."


Oh, and before anyone goes with the context apologetic, while there is some context to some of them (I wouldn't dare call it mitigating, because frankly no amount of mild context could excuse much of any of this), keep in mind that according to tradition every verse was dictated individually to Mohammed at different times in his life and not even in the order they ended up in.
These are just some the most explicit ones. There are plenty more about what filthy swine us non-Muslims are and how deserving of hell and how much Allah hates us. I only chose to list the ones that explicitly order the believers to fight us. You're welcome.

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 .