Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Depends who you are asking, the fundamentalists took that name for themelves because they see themselves as returning to the fundamentals. Salafists and other "extremists" in Islam are simply returning to the fundamentals.
A Christian Fundamentalist is one who adheres to five theological statements published by the Presbyterian Church in 1910:
Which they consider the fundamentals of the faith. Now, the situation is more complex in Christianity because Christian tradition wasn't strictly codified the way Islamic tradition has been in the Hadith and early Ishtijad so there is a very strong argument that it is the traditionalist churches like Orthodox and Catholics that are truly adhering to the fundamentals, but the point is there's nothing "extreme" about Islamic extremism as far as Islamic jurisprudence is concerned.
Because we think you are exaggerating it. Don't forget that the OP is about people giving up religion as a meaningful part of their lives, and I doubt very much that Islam, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, has played much of a role in leading them away.
In your ignorance, you refuse to recognize the threat. And I'm aware this whole conversation has been off-topic, which is why I haven't gone all out in citing the Islamic sources to prove my point. So why have so many of your ilk been so quick to defend Islam, some even blindly quoting Islamic apologists as if such sources are trustworthy on points that are embarrassing to Islam?
I am not particularly feeling threatened, is why.
I haven't defended Islam in this thread, particularly, nor have I blindly quoted Islamic apologists. I do know something about the religion and have lived and worked in Islamic countries and not felt threatened in the least. I guess you will have to do a better job of teaching rank-and-file Muslims their own theology, because clearly they don't know as much about it as you do.
Those rank-and-file Muslims don't make much of a difference when the fundamentalists begin their moves, and I wouldn't be surprised if most are well aware but simply don't make it public knowledge because it's easier to go along to get along. They are largely irrelevant to the question at hand, and mentioning them is a bit like saying "not all men."
It's a long-range question, but the biggest threat is fundamentalist muslims using the west's own tolerance against it. I've already pointed out that there's a battle plan that is laid out in both historical occurrences and the way Islamic jurisprudence works in general. First is play up the peaceful verses and create allies who choose to be ignorant of Islam's history and theological core, then move towards a privileged position for Islam under the guise of protecting them as minorities, then outright warfare and violent subjugation of anyone who doesn't submit to an Islamic state. It's how Muhammad operated from the pre-exilic Meccan period to the Medina period, followed by the period where the Muslims overthrew Mecca and finally began full on offensive warfare against the Khaybar and beyond.
According to the teachings of Islam, yes.
Because that's how we must view all people who lived in a different time period. You can't judge everyone, past and present, by what's acceptable in 2025. There are plenty of people found in the Bible and many Christian saints that would be viewed as awful people today if we held them to today's standards. Moral and cultural norms have changed dramatically over time, and some things that people in general found as acceptable behavior 300, 1,000, or 1,400 years ago aren't today.
Muslims consider the Qur'an to be the timeless revelation of God. They also understand the historical context in which it was written.
This isn't true. There were also options for being covered by a treaty, truce, or covenant.
You are speaking as if what you are saying is what Islam teaches today and what the world's 2 billion muslims believe, which isn't true.
You know the difference between mainstream Islam and Islamic extremism, yet you choose to promote the Islamic extremist interpretations of Islam rather than that of mainstream Islam. What purpose does it serve to share anti-Islamic propaganda and the extremist narrative of Islam when 99% of the world's Muslims don't follow Islam in the way you describe it in this thread? They oppose extremism just as much as you do, yet you choose to legitimize extremists while disregarding the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. If you dislike Islam, that's fine, but why post anything at all about it if you know that it's only going to create more fear and division?
So then how can they claim he is just a product of his time?
But no Christian saint in the OT is an ideal moral example for all mankind. If he is an ideal moral example for all mankind, his moral example cannot simply be dismissed as being a product of his time. Either he is the ideal moral example, or he's not.
That's talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Oh? Show where such things excluded lands from the dichotomy, and that Muslims are required to honor treaties, truces, and covenants made with those in dar-al-harb. It's not as if Muhammad honored his treaty with the Medina jews.
I am speaking as if this is the core fundamentals of Islam, which it is.
"mainstream"? I didn't say mainstream, I said fundamentalist. Those "peaceful" muslims are irrelevant, because when it jumps off they're not siding with the Western world in opposition to their Muslim brethren.
which question? Why I speak out against a threat despite the possibility of creating "fear and division"? Why would I remain quiet in the face of what i consider to be one of the greatest looming threats to modern society?
What purpose does it serve to share anti-Islamic propaganda and the extremist narrative of Islam when 99% of the world's Muslims don't follow Islam in the way you describe it in this thread?
Because your estimates underappreciate the danger, and those work-a-day Muslims don't really make a difference in the threat assessment.
Already addressed, it's not just about disliking Islam but seeing it as one of, if not the, greatest looming threats to Western societies as fundamentalists use the misplaced tolerance against such societies. To take another example, even though 99% of NAZIs weren't running concentration camps that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to widespread NAZI ideology.
The danger of Islamic extremism exists in the West, but it isn't as severe as you perceive it to be. The "work-a-day Muslims" you claim don't make a difference are the ones who are working in their communities to counter violent extremism and are giving tips to authorities that prevent terror plots from being carried out on US soil.
This analogy would only work if 99% of Germans in the 1930s had been denouncing Hitler and the SS. That didn't happen, and the exact opposite is the case when it comes to Muslims. Today every mainstream Muslim scholarly body in the world condemns terrorism, suicide bombing, and extremist violence as being forbidden and an act of apostasy, and the vast majority of Muslims agree. They are consistently condemning Islamic extremists, and Muslim soldiers are the ones doing most of the fighting and dying against Islamic terrorists. The Muslims you dismiss as irrelevant aren’t silent enablers like the vast majority of Germans were under the Nazis and they are the reason the extremists account for less than 0.1% of the Muslim population.
If that is the threat you perceive, what do you suggest we do about it? And what does it have to do with why people are losing their religiousity? Certainly you don't even present religiousity in a good light.
