Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-21-2017 9:17 AM
443 online now:
jar, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Theodoric, ThinAirDesigns, vimesey (8 members, 435 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,028 Year: 3,634/21,208 Month: 2,029/1,605 Week: 229/376 Day: 19/113 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1 of 8 (799283)
02-08-2017 5:49 PM


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 (/ˈhζdɪθ/[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.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 02-09-2017 3:22 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:20 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 02-09-2017 2:51 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1779
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 8 (799285)
02-08-2017 9:58 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9195
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 3 of 8 (799306)
02-09-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-08-2017 5:49 PM


Difference Defined
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

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 5:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2017 7:22 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 4 of 8 (799316)
02-09-2017 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
02-09-2017 3:22 AM


Re: Difference Defined
The best definition I could find came from a practicing Muslim.
quote:
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 groups

Radical 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


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 02-09-2017 3:22 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23369
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 5 of 8 (799338)
02-09-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-08-2017 5:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 5:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2017 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2960
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 8 (799361)
02-09-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-08-2017 5:49 PM


The spectrum of Islam.
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 5:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18134
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 7 of 8 (799364)
02-09-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
02-09-2017 11:20 AM


Radical Islam is the most natural reading of the written holy books of Islam, so that violent jihad is easily justified.

Says the person who thinks there is only one way to read the bible and that is as infallible truth.

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.

Because that is the way you want it to be. Even though by sheer numbers the moderate Muslims way out-number the radicals.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 02-09-2017 11:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 8 of 8 (799700)
02-13-2017 3:10 PM


A very tough question even for an honest investigator.
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-L

Always 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:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

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.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/...m-02-arab-conquest-to-modern

Looking at religions respective prophecy/eschatology (in their texts) might tell some stories that are relevant to this puzzle.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eschatology-index

(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.


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017