This is neither fact nor truth, this is only your opinion. Study after study done on the subject of Islamic extremists and why they join extremist groups show that the majority lack even a basic understanding of Islam. Many are users of drugs and alcohol, womanizers, like to party, and eat foods which are forbidden. Many don't pray, fast, or attend mosques regularly.
While it's true that many of the leaders of these organizations are well versed in Islam, they only use their extensive knowledge of Islam to deceive those who are ignorant in order to get them to join their ranks and carry out atrocities in the name of Islam.
Note this very critical point that effect ALL human beings, DNA wise as critical to all my arguments on this subject.
Note DNA wise ALL humans has a potential of the inherent existential crisis and the majority has an active impulse of this potential.
Religions at present is the most effective balm to resolve the pains, anxieties and angst emanating strongly from this existential crisis.
What drives 99% of Muslims [& most religious] believers is the quest for salvation as per the Quran [see point re soteriology above] and in other forms by other believers.
This is supported by my analysis where
the Eschatological and Soteriological [heaven, hell, salvation, judgment day] existential elements are represented by
32% of the 6236 verses of the Quran.
The threat to the path of salvation is represented by 3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses that are antagonistic and contemptuous to non-Muslims.
Those % of scholars and experts who are themselves effected by the existential crisis and cling to Islam and Allah as the savior are very well versed in the Quranic promise of salvation but also aware of the 3400++ or 55% of potential threats from non-Muslims that need to be addressed.
Thus these leaders and those who are influenced to commit terrible evil and violent acts are driven by the same existential crisis, the same religion, i.e. Islam with its 3400++ of evil laden verses against non-Muslims.
The quest to resolve the existential crisis is common to ALL humans, but the point is the solution [theistic or secular] to this problem must never be corrupted with evil and violent elements at all costs.
The problem with Islam is the Quranic verses that promise salvation is corrupted with a potential threat from non-Muslims and the 55% or 3400++ of evil and violent laden verses. These evil laden verses in the Quran had influenced, inspired and compelled to SOME [from 20% or a pool of 320 million] act according in order to be assured of their passage of salvation to paradise and eternal life.
The above is the primary reason why Islam is the root cause [in a major part] and all your excuses above are secondary.
It doesn't matter what I say because it's not going to change your opinion of these people. David Wood and the others you have mentioned deliberately lie and twist Islamic texts to make their point and they rely on their audiences ignorance of Islam to gain legitimacy. Yes, their material comes from the Qur'an, but they pick and choose what they say while ignoring the textual and historical context.
I stated don't blabber. You have to give me objective evidence. Note they did take the context and historical perspective into account where relevant.
There you go again with your blabbering.
You need to provide objective evidence and arguments.
Those who critique Islam has saved my Muslims from believing in a false religion [you agreed Islam is false].
Anti-Islamic propagandists make a lot of money exploiting non-Muslims in the west and their ignorance of Islam. It's a business to them and they thrive on conflict and discord. They have no motivation to tell the truth about Islam because if there was no conflict and division between Muslims and non-Muslims, they would be out of business. This is also true of extremists groups and terrorists. The recent attacks in New Zealand and Sri Lanka were attempts to cause further discord between Muslims and non-Muslims and we can't allow ourselves to fall into the traps being laid by the extremist.
The critiques are telling the truth of Islam objectively based on the Quran and Ahadith.
Btw, note the STALEMATE, who are you to say they are wrong.
If you want to express your views, show objective evidences.
Like I said, I lump anti-Islamic propagandists in the same boat as extremists because they are all enemies of peace.
This is very stupid logic.
From what I read of Bale's article, he is very shoddy on this without providing evidence to support his point.
You clearly have no understanding of the concept of abrogation and how it applies to the Qur'an.
What is so complicated with the concept of 'abrogation'?
Looks like you want to twist this basic term to your confirmation bias.
The violent verses found in the Qur'an don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation. For example when Qur'an 9:5 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush," it is dealing with a specific event at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims, so that verse would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since it is very specific to it's intent and the point in history it was to be applied.
The historical perspective argument is a sham. I have already argued against that. Note the contention, if historical, Islam is man made and there is no such person as Muhammad which is depicted in the Quran. There are many other contentious issues from the historical perspective. Note the research from the historian Tom Holland.
Note I have argued, 9:3 was a declaration, Allah had void all treaty of peace with non-Muslims except existing ones till they expire.
Yes, this is what is taught in Islam, however, as I point out earlier, if a verse from one of these sources doesn't contradict what is found in the Qur'an, it is accepted.
Because they have the Qur'an to compare the verses found in to today's gospels and Torah. The ones that are in agreement are accepted and those that are not are rejected. It's also important to note that the gospel referred to in the Qur'an is not referring to the four gospels found in the Bible. The gospel in the Qur'an was revealed to Jesus Himself and no one else. The gospels found in the Bible are only accounts of Jesus' ministry here on earth. Since these gospels quote Jesus, the it's the quotes found in today's gospels that can be compared to what is written in the Qur'an. This concept also applies to what was revealed to Moses and the Torah and the Psalms which were revealed to David.
Note the Stalemate dilemma of the Quran.
If the Quran is so contentious how can you or anyone else decide which Torah and Gospels which themselves has contentious verses, should match with the Quran.
Note the Quran in the later Medinan verses condemned the Torah and Gospels of the present as corrupted in the most derogatory term, thus the whole book should be ignored.
When the Islam is the most perfect, why should Muslims refer some corrupted books.
Why are you using the actions of such a tiny minority to make a judgement about what Islam teaches?
Regardless of minority or majority, what count is the objective truth.
The truth of 5:32 and 5:33 is based directly on the intent of Allah.
The fault in this case lies in Allah for allowing room for Muslims to kill non-Muslim in those verses.
As agreed, the majority of Muslims are ignorant of the verses in the Quran, thus they have to rely on the scholars and experts.
Note when Muslims themselves are well verse with the Quran presented with the facts of the verse they will have to take a stance whether to accept or reject the facts of the verse.
Based on news reports only around o.ooo1% of the world's Muslims participated in protests against the Muhammad cartoons worldwide, and far fewer of that o.ooo1% actually killed another person as a result of those protests. It's also important to remember that many of these attacks became politically motivated and many of those killed were Muslims.
Since greater than 99.999% of Muslims either didn't care about the cartoons, or decided it wasn't a big enough issue to take to the streets over (Much less kill someone), that fact alone should tell you that Islam doesn't teach that Muslims are allowed to kill someone under such vague conditions.
You don't seem to understand the severity of this cartoon examples.
Point is if there is such a low tolerance and sensitivity to the extent of cartoons as a threat to Islam, then, there is a great danger of the slightest perceive offence will trigger SOME Muslims to kill non-Muslims from a pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims.
Because their aren't millions of Muslims going around killing people. If Islam taught as you believe it does, there would be countless Muslims taking whatever weapons they could get their hands on to kill non-believers every single day in every corner of the globe. This is not happening. Instead what I see is Muslims living in peace and harmony with their neighbors, working and playing together with non-Muslims, fighting against violence and extremism in tandem with non-Muslims, and working alongside non-Muslims in their communities to address poverty, homelessness, and other injustices through charitable giving and advocacy.
Note my above default point re the existential crisis which drives people cling onto religion for salvation and their obedience to whatever God commands to ensure their passage to paradise with eternal life.
At present the majority are not triggered to be more conscious of the inherent and subliminal impulse of the threat from non-Muslims against their lifeboat, i.e. the ideology of Islam.
However there is an increasing trend of Muslims viewing non-Muslims as the enemy and hindrance to their path to salvation. Note the increasing numbers of Muslims in protest all over the world against anything that perceived as a threat to Islam.
Example, Indonesia with the largest Muslim population was once touted as moderate. Note the thousands to million that protested against the Christian Governor of Jakarta on the basis a Christian cannot rule over Muslims arising from some nonsensical blasphemy excuses.
According to your definition Dr. Bale is also an Islam apologist. You clearly didn't comprehend what he wrote in that article. I have already told you in this thread that I don't separate Islamism from Islam and I agree with Dr. Bale when he says "Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam."
Note you kept insisting Islam is a peaceful religion when it is not peaceful but inherent evil and violent as demonstrated objectively.
History tells us that that war ended in the 7th century, therefore, this tells us that this verse can't possibly apply to Muslims today.
Don't you understand stories from history can carry universal principles.
The Quran already expressed in 3400+ verses or 55% the non-Muslims are a threat to the ideology of Islam, thus a threat to their salvation to paradise with eternal life.
Therefore warfare is one of the strategy to defend Islam and assurance of Muslims passage to paradise with eternal life.
Note;
2:216. Warfare is ordained for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] 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.
Note the above and the thousands of antagonistic verses against non-Muslims and threats from non-Muslims [perceived from real actions of the infidels] do represent Allah's intent to war against non-Muslims.
Do you believe the Bible is equal to Christianity?
Nope. Note my 'Who is Christian' thread.
Who is a Christian?
In principle, a Christian of Christianity is a person who has entered into a relationship with God via a covenant to comply with the covenanted terms.
The covenanted terms of the covenan effective for a Christian of Christianity of Jesus Christ is grounded only on the Gospels by the original apostles. The epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT[abrogated] are merely appendixes to the covenant [divine contract]
According to the teachings of Islam, Islam was first revealed to the prophet Adam and has existed since the creation of the world. To Muslims Islam is a complete way of life that focuses on the belief in the one God and a commitment to his commandments. Since the Qur'an is a book that was written over a period of decades in the 7th century and wasn't available to the masses until much later after it's completion, how can it be equal to Islam if Muslims believe that Islam has existed since creation?
In my research I have classified those early so-called "Muslims" as proto-Muslims to differentiate them from the Muslims related to Muhammad.
For some reason these proto-Muslims are effectively no more Muslim [re Muhammad] that is why they have to revert back to Muslim [Muhammad] by reciting the Shahadah.
In this sense, the Quran [Muhammad's] is the final representation of Islam.
I was talking specifically about verse 3 found in chapter 5. The consensus among Islamic scholars is that this verse was revealed to Muhammad at Arafat on his farewell pilgrimage which occurs after what is written in chapter 9.
It is the same "you say, I say."
Note I have argued otherwise.
Yes so identified as a terrorist group.
But the fact is the manifesto of IS comply with >90% of the Quranic verses which is a determinant of What is Islam.
This is only your opinion.
Note we can verify this objectively by ticking off the 6236 verses of the Quran as a checklist.
Some extra points for the members of IS over others is they warred against non-Muslims as a threat to Islam, they not befriend disbelievers even if they are their father, bethren or kin.
ISIS is a terrorist group which follows a Salafi/Wahhabist sect of Islam which is rejected by the vast majority of the world's Muslims. They are following their interpretation of the Qur'an, not the most widely accepted interpretation. To quote Dr. Bale in the linked article
"these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations."
Note my point above where they would get a higher score in compliance with the 6236 verses of the Quran.
You can do that yourself by ticking each of the 6236 verses of the Quran in terms of compliance.
Since you claim you are 43 years old in your profile and Dr. Bale graduated with honors from the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Middle Eastern and Islamic History where he was awarded best Honors for his thesis in Islamic history from this university in 1977; it's safe to assume that he's been researching this subject since before you were born while a student at the University of Michigan. Dr. Bale is also a contributor to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland which is an institution that some of the courses I have taken on terrorism and violent extremism are offered. I'm familiar with Dr. Bale and his work.
Noted and agree re age wise. This is what I meant by objective.
However note my other argument, years do not count, but rather what count is objective arguments with evidence.
You have made that pretty clear already. You have also made it clear that you don't think what experts and scholars have to say on these subjects count either.
The universal test of intellectual integrity is objective evidence and argument.
I don't agree with any views that is subjective and not supported with objective arguments and evidence.
