Why aren't "violent extremists" referred to as heretics instead of "radicals"?

Aug 2013
613
Pomerium
Why aren't "violent extremists" referred to as heretics instead of "radicals"?

Doesn't the mainstream want us to think that the violent extremists' theology and eschatology deviate from the authentic teachings of the religion of peace?

Don't the violent extremists love to be seen as radicals (of the root) and fundamentalists (of the fundamentals)?

Why don't the purveyors of fake news refer to the violent extremists as heretics?
 
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Heretics are for religious while extremists are for the secular. Fake news must be coming from secular people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Dec 2014
16
New York
Heretics are for religious while extremists are for the secular. Fake news must be coming from secular people.
So for example if a country was very religious, they would label these terrorist as "Heretic's" ?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,412
Welsh Marches
Are the violent extremists heretics? Can't they justify their actions on the basis of passages in the Koran and hadith? This is a complicated matter at the very least.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,543
Japan
Unless they are preaching against the accepted teaching of their religion they are not heretics.

Denying Mohammed as a prophet is heretical.
Killing people is not as it is with the vague bounds of the religion.

Claiming Jesus is not the physical son of god would be heresy.
Blowing up an abortion clinic, while evil, is not heresy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,995
Dispargum
Before Islam can declare anyone or any teaching to be heretical, Islam must first define what is orthodox. Islam has no pope or any other authority that can define what is orthodox or what is heretical. All authority in Islam is derived from the Kuran which is subject to multiple interpretations. No one can say which interpretation is correct.

As to the purveyors of fake news, they make their money by scaring their audiences. To portray the entire religion of Islam as terrorist makes for a bigger and scarier enemy.
 
Last edited:

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,412
Welsh Marches
The problem with Islam lies in the fact that the Koran is taken to be the direct and unquestionable word of God, and that is bound to be problematic because that book reflects the ideas and social conditions of Arabia in the 7th century. It is simply not true to say that many of the crucial teachings of the Koran are open to multiple interpretation. E.g wives should be obedient to their husband, and if they're not, then he should beat them :

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

There is not much that one can do with such a passage. If one ignores it, one is ignoring the infallible word of God; at most one can qualify it, e.g by adding beat 'lightly' (as one will find in some translations).

Since Mohammed was a warlord who did scruple to kill surrendered captives and distribute captured women to his followers as slaves, more much problematic things than that can be found in the Koran and hadith. Similarly with regard to the reduction of non-believers to a state of subjection, or the killing of apostates. If it is true enough that there are purveyors of fake news who would like to present Muslims as terrorists, the coverage in the mainstream media is equally untrustworthy because they almost always gloss over uncomfortable facts like these, doubtless for the best of reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Mar 2012
18,030
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
The problem with Islam lies in the fact that the Koran is taken to be the direct and unquestionable word of God, and that is bound to be problematic because that book reflects the ideas and social conditions of Arabia in the 7th century. It is simply not true to say that many of the crucial teachings of the Koran are open to multiple interpretation. E.g wives should be obedient to their husband, and if they're not, then he should beat them :

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

There is not much that one can do with such a passage. If one ignores it, one is ignoring the infallible word of God; at most one can qualify it, e.g by adding beat 'lightly' (as one will find in some translations).

Since Mohammed was a warlord who did scruple to kill surrendered captives and distribute captured women to his followers as slaves, more much problematic things than that can be found in the Koran and hadith. Similarly with regard to the reduction of non-believers to a state of subjection, or the killing of apostates. If it is true enough that there are purveyors of fake news who would like to present Muslims as terrorists, the coverage in the mainstream media is equally untrustworthy because they almost always gloss over uncomfortable facts like these, doubtless for the best of reasons.
I agree with you of those specifics about the command of the Koran. On the basis of that do you think calling Islam a religion of peace as fake news too?