What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam?

This issue keeps coming up (regurgitating?) on many threads so I though one single thread to discuss Islam vs Radical Islam would be appropriate.

quote:

---

Islam without Extremists

​

Once in a while the news are filled about a group of extremist Muslims who slaughter people and commit the most unthinkable crimes under the name of Islam. ISIS is a recent example. If you ask such people that why they are committing such obvious wrong deeds and still consider it the command of the God, they would answer that they are trusting a Muslim scholar and that they receive the commands of the God through him. Based on this trust they consider the scholar's commands equivalent to the God's commands and blindly follow the scholar's instructions to make the God happy. But does not this method sound too similar to shirk, the exact opposite of Islam's primary message, which is not following anybody except the God? How did this happen? How did that origin with the most clear message came to this obvious contradictory point?

​

In the "Belief vs. Trust" article, we show that similarly to all modern religions, in the current understanding of Islam also believing in God is interpreted as trusting a religious package preached by the local religious scholars. After analyzing the roots of such interpretation in all religions, the article shows that key element that legitimizes the incorporation of trusting scholars into islamic practice is considering Hadith as a pillar of Islam. The current Islam which is mixed with Hadith has become so complicated that leaves an ordinary Muslim with no solution but seeking the advice of some Hadith experts (or scholars) about "what Islam says". This blind obedience creates potential for extremism: if the religious scholar is extremist, the blind followers also apply the extremism in the name of religion.

​

Then in the "Islam without Hadith" article, we list the pros and cons of existence of Hadith in the current Islamic practice, and show that by eliminating Hadith not only we do not lose any of the core Islamic values but also we are given the chance to rediscover the Simple Islam, the religion which guides us to nothing but reasonable, beautiful deeds. In Simple Islam, which is free from the complexities of Hadith, there is no space for religious scholars to instruct their blind followers to such unbelievable crimes. In the "Scope" article, we then revisit some of the controversial topics in Quran, such as slavery and women rights, and observe a Quran very different from what the scholars have been preaching for years.

---

This is the critical element (in bold above): "... This blind obedience creates potential for extremism: if the religious scholar is extremist, the blind followers also apply the extremism in the name of religion.We can compare this to different Christian sects with different leaders, some of them charismatic evangelist cult leaders (the Branch-Davidians leader David Koresh come to mind) -- his extremism certainly lead his followers to a violent bloody death, and they had planned acts of violence, terrorism.

quote:

---

Hadith

​

A hadith (/ˈhdɪθ/[1] or /hɑːˈdiːθ/;[2] Arabic: حديث‎‎ ḥadīth, plural: ahadith, أحاديث, ʼaḥādīth[3]) is one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[3] The term comes from Arabic meaning a "report", "account" or "narrative". Hadith are second only to the Quran in developing Islamic jurisprudence,[4] and regarded as important tools for understanding the Quran and commentaries (tafsir) written on it. Some important elements of traditional Islam, such as the five salat prayers, are mentioned in hadith.[5]

​

The hadith literature is based on spoken reports that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Qur'an the hadiths were not quickly and concisely compiled during and immediately after Muhammad's life.[3] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad, after the end of the era of the "rightful" Rashidun Caliphate, over 1,000 km (620 mi) from where Muhammad lived.

---

So we can compare the Hadith to the Christian Gospels, written later from oral history.The salient take-away is that it is the radical "scholar" leader that turns Islam into violent behavior, not the religion itself, and there are many sects that do not have radical "scholar" leaders and these are the moderate or liberal leaders.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Thread copied here from the What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

The best definition I could find came from a practicing Muslim.

quote:

---

...there is one fundamental difference between radical Islam and moderate Islam that overshadows everything else, the former accepts only the rulings of Quran and interprets them through Hadith, the latter accepts the teachings of Quran through the application of reason and conscience and does not consider Hadith as very important.
So in short:
Radical Islam = Quran + hadith
Moderaate Islam = Quran + reason + conscience

---

Sounds good, but I think there are differences between Radical sects that depend on the leader interpretations, and whether he is prone to promote extremist violence (eg ISIS) or work within society through laws.That would break Radical Islam into two groupsRadical Islam (extremist) sects\cults where charismatic leader promotes or condones terrorism, violence and war as weapons for ...Fundamental Islam sects where leaders advocate followers adhere to strict interpretation of Quran and Hadith and Sharia Law.And I still see parallels with Christianity sects and cults.Enjoy

Radical Islam is the most natural reading of the written holy books of Islam, so that violent jihad is easily justified.I gather some sects spiritualize those readings so that jihad is not a violent attack on others.Some Muslims either don't know or don't follow the violent parts of their holy books.But the violence is always there in writing for whenever a person may happen to become indoctrinated to it, that is, "radicalized."In a way it doesn't matter how many Muslims follow the radical teachings at any given time; the leaders will always be there to promote violent action or whatever it takes to rule over a nonMuslim country when they have the power to do so, and the people will follow them.That's how I understand it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's a different way of looking at it. There's a spectrum. On one extreme are the full liberals. On the other are the authoritarians. Everyone else ranges in between.The full liberal attitude is this: if something is thought by a liberal to meet with God's disapproval, like watching T.V., then the full liberal takes the attitude "I won't watch T.V., but I won't stop anyone else from doing so, because (from the Koran) there is no coercion in religion. This can be further explained by the reasoned point that you are only doing good in the eyes of God if you do so voluntarily. Not watching T.V. because you want to but the Taliban have banned it gets you no points in the eyes of God.The full authoritarian attitude is that God wants you to make the whole of society bend to his will. So, if the authoritarian thinks T.V. watching is wrong in the eyes of God, he wants T.V. banned under the law of the land. He wants a theocracy.If we look at all the groups described as "radical" in the O.P., they are all strong supporters of theocracy: full on coercion.The reason that the author of the O.P. article might have perceived leaders as being of great importance could be because authoritarians tend to focus around strong and obvious leaders, and liberals are more naturally individualistic, and their leaders will be theological guides and (by definition) would not be authority figures. But both groups can have leaders who have influence over theological interpretations, like whether or not T.V. is bad.To complicate matters, there are many different theological interpretations at any point on the spectrum. T.V. might be fine for some liberal groups and not for others, and it might be legal in some theocracies but not others.Liberal doesn't mean lax observance. The liberal might be very strict with herself, just not with others. The extreme liberals, it goes without saying, are innately tolerant of other beliefs. The authoritarians can tolerate other religions, particularly Christianity and Judaism, the people of the book, but these have lower status. If they are extreme, and you are a pagan, polytheist, animist or atheist, flee as quickly as possible, or keep your mouth shut and pretend to be Muslim!People here are more familiar with Christianity, and of course there is a similar spectrum. The difference is that there are relatively few sects left that are on the far authoritarian side. There used to be far more, and their enforcement used to be far more vicious in the good old days when heretics were hung.Does that help?

Says the person who thinks there is only one way to read the bible and that is as infallible truth. Because that is the way you want it to be. Even though by sheer numbers the moderate Muslims way out-number the radicals.Enjoy

Islam seems to have been quite intolerant (overall) of non-Christians, non-Jews, non-Muslims, but (on the other hand)not so bad when compared to the Catholics and Martin Luther's "Protestant" followers.BUT WARNING, don't take anybody's word for it. Don't even take my word for it (as honest as I am) because it is a multi(-million) layered (historical!) issue that is super complicated and requires a lot of study - which almost nobody, including myself, has done.Follow the WARNING and don't ever fail to do so.This is really a historical issue.I said H-I-S-T-O-R-I-C-A-LAlways remember just how full of crap historians are; even mainstream historians are ignorant or stupid. They just haven't done the work. EXAMPLE: How many times have you heard about how Constantine brought freedom of worship to Christians? The historians always say that pre-Constantine Christians had a rough time and post-Constantine Christians had freedom. It's a myth that has a Catholic/Protestant bias to it (history is written by the winners and they are indeed the "winners") The irony is that even Catholic scholarship will at times let the truth slip. here is an example from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

quote:

---

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Marcionites

​

Marcionite martyrs are not infrequently referred to in Eusebius' "Church History" (IV.15; IV.46; V.16; V.21; VII.12). Their number and influence seem always to have been less in the West than in the East, and in the West they soon died out. Epiphanius, however, testifies that in the East in A.D. 374 they had deceived "a vast number of men" and were found, "not only in Rome and Italy but in Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus and the Thebaid and even in Persia". And Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in the Province of the Euphrates from 423 to 458, in his letter to Domno, the Patriarch of Antioch, refers with just pride to having converted one thousand Marcionites in his scattered diocese. Not far from Theodoret's diocese, near Damascus, an inscription was found of a Marcionite church, showing that in A.D. 318-319 Marcionites possessed freedom of worship (Le Boss and Waddington, "Inscr. Grec.", Paris, 1870). Constantine (Eusebius, "Vita", III, lxiv) forbade all public and private worship of Marcionism.

---

As for Islam, which is an issue in its own right, it is very complicated and difficult question when it comes to tolerance issues. You have to look at its history while attempting to answer the question. Look at the history outright (and understand that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a decent treatment of the issue that is broad enough in all the areas it looks at), then hope you can come to a decent history of theological interpretation of the Islamic sacred texts.Look at how Islam treated non-Christians, non-Jews. Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Manicheans are important world religions. Here is a source on Zoroastrians and their treatment.ZOROASTRIANISM ii. Arab Conquest to Modern — Encyclopaedia IranicaLooking at religions respective prophecy/eschatology (in their texts) might tell some stories that are relevant to this puzzle.ESCHATOLOGY — Encyclopaedia Iranica(has links to:
i. In Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian Influence.ii. Manichean Eschatology.iii. Imami shi’ism.iv. In Babism and Bahaism. )But all of these issues are just pieces of the puzzle. They might not be the best places to start looking. But one has to see how they actually treated the minorities before one can start to understand anything.Never ever listen to a Christian fundamentalist on this issue though. I have never talked to a Muslim hating fundamentalist (in person) who has even heard of (for example) Zoroastrians. Even the ones that present themselves as experts are ignorant as heck's hell.

Many Muslims are very nice people, but their ideology could at any moment turn to the violent un-American, terroristic sadistic ways. For the faint of heart - this approach rejects the politically correct approach from snowflake liberals who would have us turn the other cheek - whose bleeding heart bending over to protect the radical fascists borders on the pathological. People who want to embrace and preserve the fruits of these savage terrorists and welcome these evil culture destroying monsters into our lands.

quote:

---

Through all obstacles and enemies
Whether you go up or down
In the flames of revolt
Carry the flame to kindle
"Never mind"
For silence is filth
Worthless is blood and soul
For the sake of the hidden glory

​

To die or conquer the hill
-- Translated Hezbollah battle-song

---

We should never forget Black Sunday when 10 innocent people were killed by Radical Islamic Terrorists went on a blood thirsty savage rampage through Jerusalem fuelled by their hatred. Or the train bombing in Haifa that killed 4, including 2 French police officers! Not to mention the barbaric and murderous cafe bombing that took place less than a week later. Over the next few weeks more death was rained upon innocent people, peaking with a maniacal foam-frothed lunatic Islamic extremist threw a bomb into a market place killing 18 people, including 3 children - and injuring 24.We should never forget the bombing at Jaffa by Muslims. Or the July bombings and the nefarious plot to incite riots that resulted in 33 dead at Haifa. Or the bomb that less than two weeks later killed ten more innocent people when radical Islamic insurgents bombed a marketplace in Jerusalem. Or how a week later the disgusting radical Muslims killed 43 with a cowardly bomb attack in Haifa. The two dozen more innocent dead a month later with yet another marketplace bombingAll this in one year. The year after that sociopathic Muslims killed 33 in coordinated bombing attacks on market-places. Then there was the atrocious attack on a cinema by Islamic wretches who used a landmine to kill five in May. Dozens more killed the following month culminating in maniacal Muslims putting explosives on a donkey - a donkey! It killed 20. July saw yet more shootings, more bombings and more death at the hands of these insane, religiously motivated lunatics.When you start to go through it, piece by gory piece, it is clear why we should not allow Muslims into our country - they cannot, as a community, be trusted. While there may be wise scientists, pacifists and politicians, some of them nice people...they could at any time attack our markets and kill our people.The casualties just mount up. There was a single incident one year in which 91 people were killed after Muslims set bombs off in a hotel. A hotel! Just because, apparently, 'enemies of the Islamic people' were using it as a base - most of the people killed were just workers, they weren't even part of the military or government they were fighting against. What's that all about?I don't even want to get into the massacres and slaughtering of rural village folk.Maybe the liberals are right? Maybe if we talk to these folk they would say these things are unfortunate, inexcusable events where young undisciplined men went too far in a time of violence and anger:

quote:

---

We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody's examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change, nor do we want to.

---

quote:

---

A Muslim brought up among Swedes may assume Swedish custom, Swedish words. He may be wholly imbued with that Swedish fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Muslim, because his blood, his body... are Muslim. ... It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them.

---

quote:

---

Israel is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. The Islamic State will be restored to the people of Palestine. All of it. And for Ever.

​

The 6th Ayatollah of Crapistan or something.

---

quote:

---

Defensiveness by way of offensiveness, in order to deprive the enemy the option of attacking, is called active defense.

​

--Radical Islamist scholar

---

Talk about nonsense doubletalk!

quote:

---

Allah will be at our side. There is no retreat. Liberty or death.... The fighting youth will not recoil in the face of sacrifices and suffering, blood and torment. They will not surrender, so long as our days of old are not renewed, so long as our brethren are not ensured honor, bread, justice and Sharia.

---

quote:

---

History and experience taught us that if we are able to destroy the prestige of the Americans, the infidels will break. Since we found the enslaving government's weak point, we will not let go of it

---

quote:

---

ISIS' soldiers will penetrate your centers of activity and plague you. You have not heeded the warning. You continued to harm our brothers and murder them in wild cruelty. Therefore soldiers of the Islamic State will go on the attack, as we have warned you.

---

Then they come over to our lands are we surprised when they make demands for us to build houses of worship for them? To alter the way we prepare and present food to please their sensibilities? This is the core of their culture, surely, to demand by whatever means concessions to their way of life, with little compromise. They force people to segregate in public settings, on public transport - just so they don't have to sit next to women as they feel it is sinful. They impost so-called 'modesty' standards on their women and force them to cover up with veils and scarves. They want to set up private schools where they can indoctrinate their children into their way of life and force them to read their so-called 'Holy Books'. They spit at young girls and call them whores. They even try to force architectural design decisions onto the rest of us!These are the people that foisted the likes of Soros and Marcuse onto decent Western Culture, changing it irrevocably forever. Sorry, did I say Muslims? I meant to say Jews all along. Trigger Warning: these events happened. The names, title and religion of the participants have been changed to protect the snowflakes.

Bullshit.

Trade Towers (twern't the Mormons...)

Oh hello Coyote, didn't expect to see you in this thread. What's bullshit?

Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (twern't the Mormons...)

---

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website