Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims?

Well your question is based on the assumption that the more litteral and radical aproach you have on Islam will eventyually lead you to terrorism which is in fact a wrongfull picture portraited by the media. Things are far more complexer then this. The crimes commited by terrorists are a direct violation of the rules of Islam itself. So terrorism requires much more then just a radical aproach to Islam, it also requires for the terrorist to ignore many rules of his religion and twist and misinterpret information.

I would be considered radical according to western defenition of it, but the last thing I'd do is commit such gruesome mass murders.

well what is a extremist?

if you take the bible or the torah word for word & follow it, then ur an extremist in your religion

if Allah (swt) commands summin, and we do it, then thats good , but sum ayahs were revealed for a certain situation in the Prophet (saw) life, for example surah tauba we can take lesson from them if a situation like that arises, but there aint a situation like that so personally i dont think they apply to us!

In the context of Islam, or Christianity for that matter, I would consider one as extremist if they commit acts of murder, whether it be car bombs, suicide bombs, beheading, etc, and hide behind the veil of religion to justify it to themselves and others. I consider Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic doctor, to be an extremist. I would also consider Zarqawi to be an extremist. Whether you are using the Quran or the Bible, committing acts of murder and brutality and justifying it as the will of God is an extremist mindset in my opinion. I would hope all of us would agree that God is not about murder, bombs, suicide, and beheadings.

format_quote Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST

Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims? I mean the ones that take the Quran literally. The ones who believe they have done well in Allahs eyes by destroying a so called idol or a system that wars against theirs.

What do you believe?

When I hear their words and see what it is the world has taught them, I become sad in knowing they believed they had no other option left. I don't believe they 'enjoy' death and destruction, but more they have grown to accept it and to seek what comes from it. They believe they're being tested, and perhaps they are, but I would personally prefer the issues to be resolved on the level of intelligence that on the level of flesh.

Out of all I've seen, from everyone's different sides, perhaps their truth isn't the real problem. Maybe the presentation of that truth is to blame. For instance, if I told you the only way to leave this world is by Death, no one would argue with me... because it is something we can all see and we all know it. It doesn't matter what your religion is, what your gender is or what your race or species is. Death is that well known here.

But where matters of religion are concerned, conflicts have occured and were not resolved forcing the people to follow the different leaders and these people are now caught between the conflict of these leaders. It isn't that the conflicts can't be resolved... but the people are made to suffer because the leaders won't, even though they're the ones who caused the disputes in the first place. Why are these leaders so lazy?

Because it takes work to resolve a dispute on the level of intelligence. It's up to you to find a way to present your complaint in a way that everyone can understand it. You have to face off with the ones you're making accusations against and you would have to pay attention to every word they had to say, as well as keep track of your own.

Back in the ancient days, it was considered a serious offense to make an accusation against another person. It was lawful, but would require both parties involved, the accuser and the accused, to enter a chamber together and basically kiss their lives good-bye until the matter was perfectly settled between them. They had to prove their complaints to each other in private, not in front of other people. Why? So their disputes would not be allowed to pollute the community and breed dissent among the people faster than a plague... which is where we all are now. And also, for dignity.

These men should not have to blow up buildings to be heard and answered, but they're soldiers. It's all they have. Maybe if the leaders were more willing to do the work they are supposed to be doing, these men wouldn't need to?

It isn't like they don't have valid complaints. Ah, the old 'Pen vs Sword' thing.

Ninth Scribe

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

I would consider one as extremist if they commit acts of murder, whether it be car bombs, suicide bombs, beheading, etc, and hide behind the veil of religion to justify it to themselves and others.... SNIP... I would hope all of us would agree that God is not about murder, bombs, suicide, and beheadings.

This goes nowhere but in circles though! It's just as whacky as the whole: He said, she said, they said, we said - gossip-mobile. To call a person a terrorist based on your specs, the out-come would change in acordance with the times. We blasted the hell out of Iraq, and after that, they blasted the hell out of Iraq. Many people have said Shock and Awe was terrorism, and in my files, which are extremely detailed, our armies did open fire and kill a ton of civilians. During Shock and Awe, we even destroyed a wedding party, so yes, I do go off when I hear everyone **** Zarqawi because one of his men did the same thing... in Amman (President Bush's favorite digs, by the way). Everything else is just insult to injury from then onward. Beheadings? Well, gee! Didn't the Saudis just behead six drug smugglers? Did anyone tell the Saudis to stop executing people in that way? And who are WE to complain about humane death, when we're in the middle of debating whether or not lethal injection is humane? Ya know? Ye who is free of sin may cast the first stone, but from where I'm standing, these men are being accused by men who are being accused!

And it only seems like it's based in religion because there simply is no separation of church and state like there was here, and only very recently I might add.

What a nutty world.

Ninth Scribe

format_quote Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST

I am not talking about terrorism, but the law of the quran.

Well, then I would have to ask you, by which definition? And therein lies the whole problem. Scholars have no way to debate these issues to produce a uniform standard. When they disagree, they split the people up into their different sides. Some believe in suicide belts. Some do not. And the thousand other issues that exist that affect the way in which each group of people DEFINES... Islam.

I recommend an Assembly of Scholars. One who is especially willing to hear EVERYONE! Not just the ones who happen to agree with them.

Ninth Scribe

format_quote Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST

The plain and simple definition of extremist is this: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

Now am I saying that you are an extremist if you take the Bible and or quran literally. NO But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?

"Beyond the norm" is relative your norm. In a way one could say every single person is an extremist depending on who sets the norm then.

As for your example the rules on theft are not as simple as that. there are many criteria before such a punisment can be aplied.

extremist? ignore them, They take islam to heart,

Love something so much can lead to hatred :grumbling

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

"Beyond the norm" is relative your norm. In a way one could say every single person is an extremist depending on who sets the norm then.

Exactly. We have people right here in the U.S.A. who were shocked by the way in which Bush invaded Iraq. It was certainly not considered... the norm.

Ninth Scribe

format_quote Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST

O.K, lets focus on the topic of theft. What would be the criteria in a situation where an individual steals to feed his family. (Under Islamic rule).

But wait... I thought under Islamic rule, there is Charity. Where there is Charity, why would anyone be caught stealing... to feed their family?

Ninth Scribe

Yes, under Islamic rule, but if Shariah isnt correctly established, there will be. Just look at some countries...well i think lol.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe

Well, then I would have to ask you, by which definition? And therein lies the whole problem. Scholars have no way to debate these issues to produce a uniform standard. When they disagree, they split the people up into their different sides. Some believe in suicide belts. Some do not. And the thousand other issues that exist that affect the way in which each group of people DEFINES... Islam.

I recommend an Assembly of Scholars. One who is especially willing to hear EVERYONE! Not just the ones who happen to agree with them.

Ninth Scribe

I disagree, scolars do not disagree on suicide belt they all condemn it. And if you look at the source of Islam, the quran and the hadeeth you'd see why. Just because there are some people who seem to think that it is an islamic interpretation doesn't necesairly make it so. And scolarship is not like a democracy, truth is not found by election but by logical arguments. If some people chose to ignore these arguments, and thus ignore hadeeths and qur'anic verses then their personal opinion shouldn't matter. That opinion is then their belief. Not Islamic belief. Hadeeth and qur'an do not leave that much room for interpretation. When scolars do agree, it's usually more like one saying something is forbidden and another saying it's discouraged. So it's not like they directly oppose one another.