Absolutely I admit this.
The distinction between us, which I think is very profound, is that whilst I am attributing these rhetorical movements to perverted, extremist and very marginalised interpretations of the text, you have consistently claimed that these interpretations are central to the text and the religion itself.
Says who? That's only one interpretation of the Islam, not shared by millions who would gladly disagree with you. I'm pretty confident than in a few Islamic states your mild interpretation of the Islam could get you killed.
There are entire countries where most people interpret Islam in an extremist fashion. I would say calling it a marginalized interpretation is completely inaccurate.
More than that, you present an interpretation of Islam which is mostly patent in places where Islam does not have absolute power. It's more likely that you find milder interpretations of the Islam in secular nations instead of Islamic states. By Islamic state I mean those that use the Sharia law or the Koran as a form of legislation, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia, etc. These are all great places to live in, I'm sure.
In these states you can't clearly separate politics and religion, so your thesis that only politics are responsible for violence and the messages of hatred contained in the holy books have nothing to do with it fails right from the start. Plus, you idea that it was western colonization, capitalism and so on that made these nations violent is absurd as violence due to religious motives predates these phenomena by hundreds of years. Violence against nonbelievers started as soon as the Islam was created by the hands of the prophet himself. Inform yourself, tobes.
Even dogs manifest agonistic behavior when they are not the leaders of the pack, but if they gain power they may well turn into ruthless beasts against those who defy their dominance. I'm not sure if that milder interpretation of Islam doesn't arise as a result of external pressures and loss of power more than anything else. This was the case for Christians, for we all know the atrocities they committed in the name of Christ when the Church lead nations with an iron fist.
This is a very, very big difference.
Indeed. You have a nice pair of pink glasses on.
I in no way deny that Islamic terrorist groups willfully engage in tremendously politicised and violent readings of Islamic thought.
Not if you aren't mentally deranged, you don't. The twin towers didn't collapse by themselves, as you know. You just deny that Islam has anything to do with it, in spite of what the terrorists said themselves before crashing and killing themselves, their last words being of religious nature. It's also funny that while you try to detach the message of Islam from violent actions, you trace these actions to violent readings of Islamic
thought. Amusing, to say the least.
It is simply that one cannot extrapolate from that, anything meaningful about Islamic texts and the tradition itself.
How could I extrapolate such violent meaning from texts who directly tell Muslims that killing disbelievers pleases Allah? I must be barking mad!
How could I extrapolate that passages such as:Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
may contribute to bring violence to this world! I must be out of my mind!
Listen tobes, you keep repeating the same argument ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it more convincing. We never denied the role of a myriad of factors contributing to violent expressions of the Islam. We simply say that the textual message contained in the Islamic holy books can't be completely detached from them. The more you travel to the past, the less powerful were the external pressures applied to the Islamic world and the more violent was the expression of the Islamic thought. Its peak was a little after the prophet's death. After that there wasn't much people to kill in the Arabic peninsula, so perhaps that explains why they calmed down a little.
Yet you keep banging the same drum that the violent passages of the Koran have nothing to do with it. Of course they do. Of course they aren't alone in causing such violence as many other factors are at play.
Do us a favor and please show some compassion towards that straw man you've been spanking.