I have not seen anyone mocking Islam openly and you are right it should not be tolerated.Alphanumeric wrote:The terms hilited are themselves subjective, and used to define a term that is also subjective in understanding.Voltage wrote:No one is a religious scholar here and no one is in an official capacity as state judge that would interpret the Sharia. As a result, I would define religious extremism as anyonewho condones outward nature of terrorism, anyone who makes takfiir, anyone who attempts to solicit political support for terrorist groups, and anyone whom the majority of participants deem as having "extreme" religious views (blv me we know one when we see one).Grant wrote:This could get interesting. How are you going to define what is extreme?
You can always tell who is an extremist because they size down the collective sum of the faith to political matters. There are many respectable religious people on this board, that are faithful, pious, and we respect. People like Nobleman, Hyperactive, Amat-Allah, Perfect_Order, Executive, myself, etc. However, the most loud mouths are always the one who bring down the total sum of the faith to "murtad", "al shabaab/al qaeda",etc. There is no faith, there is no study of iimaan, history, law, literally every other facet of existence Islam touches on.
My view of extremism is of both violence/harshness, and excessive leniency and disregard for Shari'ah. Why is extremism viewed only in the perspective of violence? Is the outright abandonment of the Shari'ah not a form of extremism? What of those who openly mock the religion of Islam? What of takfir? How would you rule over someone who claim a Muslim will burn in hell for eternity and/or wish that the devil ram his ass? Because, imho, that falls under takfir. Now, if it is takfir, half the forumers will be banned, by your own rules.
Those who think some Muslim will burn in hell fire are not calling for the mass murder of people. Don't equate those people with the extremist celebrating the deaths in Xamar.

