What constitutes Extremism ?

Quotes by Ahosyney:

"Islam is the only truth in this world. That is the clear fact."

"The only case I support stoning (for adultery), is when the couple allow four people to see his part inside her part"

"I'm not barbaric. I'm more civilized than you (western civilization"."

"I don't have religionist delusions"

Taken from the thread "Of all the world's evils, lying is the least of them. "

Topics for debate:

1. Would you say that the views expressed by him are extremist? If so why? If not why not?
2. If you have any experience with muslims, have you found others that expressed similar views? In other words how common are the views expressed by Ahosyney?

My own personal opinion is that Ahosyney is NOT an extremist. He is a normal regular but rather well-educated follower of his religion Islam and is not afraid of anti-Islamic public opinion. I admire the guy for that. I dont think he is extremist because he is taking the writings of the Koran and related Hadiths and applying them without twisting them. An extremist, in my opinion is one with a prior agenda who will use Islam to justify his actions. I know other many muslims who have expressed similar views.

If we took on word for word relgious writings then the Bible is no less or more extremist then the Qu'ran (chek out the Old Testiment!) Different groups of Christians interpret the Bible differently - some more liberal than others, some more orthodox. The same exists in Islam - there are more liberal muslims and some more orthodox or what others may label as extreme.

This is human nature ie: people taking different stand points / interpretations to events, writings etc.

My experience of world relgions and people practising religion is that some are open-minded loving and wise whilst others are judgemental, angry and extremist and oppressive. This experience does not depend on whether the person is Christian, Hindu, Catholic, Sufi, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist...

I must note here that I have heard many Christians express almost identical views but from a Christian perspective.
I consider some of the views expressed delusional, but unless he actually stones someone, I would be reluctant to call him an extremist based on the comments so far.

Originally posted by twhitehead
but unless he actually stones someone, I would be reluctant to call him an extremist based on the comments so far.

err yes i thing the stoning is probably the one that does it!!

Originally posted by yavash
If we took on word for word relgious writings then the Bible is no less or more extremist then the Qu'ran (chek out the Old Testiment!) Different groups of Christians interpret the Bible differently - some more liberal than others, some more orthodox. The same exists in Islam - there are more liberal muslims and some more orthodox or what others may label as ...[text shortened]... t depend on whether the person is Christian, Hindu, Catholic, Sufi, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist...

Is it your view then is that all religious groups have the same amount or kind of extremism?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Quotes by Ahosyney:

"Islam is the only truth in this world. That is the clear fact."

"The only case I support stoning (for adultery), is when the couple allow four people to see his part inside her part"

"I'm not barbaric. I'm more civilized than you (western civilization"."

"I don't have religionist delusions"

Taken from the thr ...[text shortened]... justify his actions. I know other many muslims who have expressed similar views.

If he supports 'stoning' for the sin of adultery, then he is a politically-correct radical Islamist, maybe?

Maybe if he took the example of Michael Phelp's position on getting 'stoned', then perhaps he would be a traditional Islamist?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Is it your view then is that all religious groups have the same amount or kind of extremism?

i would say that people make a religion and some people regardless of their religion have extremist points of view. i have seen this with people throughout the world and of different religions. i have to say also though that i have come across incredibly wise, loving, dedicated, humane and humble practitioners - throughout all.. i think that the expression of one's religion varies throughout all religions.

i would say however that some religions or pockets are portrayed as extremist and indeed there are groups of people who use religion to justify their violence, extremism and "inhumane" actions. Also some old and modern texts / writings are quite "extreme" in comparison to todays moderate liberal standards - this includes christianity, islam, hinduism and buddhism.

Extremism is so strongly assciated with violence etc but if i am extremist in my moral discipline (in that i do not compromise or moderate my own morals and values) then is my extremism here a bad thing? Extremism becomes negative when people spue their religion on others, manipulate, judge, condemn, use religion as a politcal tool, are violent, create mass hysteria towards another group of people and are incredbly negative about others not doing "it" the way they do.

Originally posted by yavash
i would say that people make a religion and some people regardless of their religion have extremist points of view. i have seen this with people throughout the world and of different religions. i have to say also though that i have come across incredibly wise, loving, dedicated, humane and humble practitioners - throughout all.. i think that the expression of ...[text shortened]... r group of people and are incredbly negative about others not doing "it" the way they do.

You seem to be trying to equate all the religions. Unfortunately the facts are not going to support you.

Religious behaviour that is displayed by you and impacts on you personally is not extremism and is your own concern eg moral values. But If your religious beliefs impact on the lives of others negatively then its extremism. The ultimate form being extreme behaviour that leads to the death of others.

I have yet to see Hindus or Buddists, leading violent demonstrations and making death threats, because some newpaper published something offensive. Or carrying out public excecutiions for minor offenses.

Extremist <-> fundamentalist

I say that only fundamentalists can be extremists. Right or wrong?
I say that in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist before. Right or wrong?

So without fundamentalists there cannot be any extremists. Right or wrong?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Extremist <-> fundamentalist

I say that only fundamentalists can be extremists. Right or wrong?
I say that in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist before. Right or wrong?

So without fundamentalists there cannot be any extremists. Right or wrong?

I guess so.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Extremist <-> fundamentalist

I say that only fundamentalists can be extremists. Right or wrong?
I say that in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist before. Right or wrong?

So without fundamentalists there cannot be any extremists. Right or wrong?

It seems to me that a fundamentalist can be an extremist or not; an extremist is a fanatic fundamentalist activist who gives not a fig for the secular law. Extremism is the deep will of specific teams to promote their opinions and their ideals by means of brutal force and through radical political and social activism. Extremists have not the sense of equilibrium, however the impression that "extremism" is just an unbalanced activism is in my opinion mistaken.
Behind extremism you always find social poverty and wretchedness, along with a delusional impression of justice and the usual known rigid belief to "absolute truths". These are the agents that they oppose the sense of the equilibrium.
However, the people who have merely this exact sense and therefore they stand still, they are always well developed into the social system and never the ones that they have the feeling or the awareness that they are pariahs. So the one individual who has the sense of the social equilibrium is obliged to work hard in order to destroy extremism from its within, therefore s/he has to understand the real social conditions within society and then s/he has to try to provide this equilibrium by any means.

On the other hand it seems to me that extremism is related with fanatisicm and with the quality of one's activism, not with fundamentalism itself.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You seem to be trying to equate all the religions. Unfortunately the facts are not going to support you.

Religious behaviour that is displayed by you and impacts on you personally is not extremism and is your own concern eg moral values. But If your religious beliefs impact on the lives of others negatively then its extremism. The ultimate form being extr ...[text shortened]... newpaper published something offensive. Or carrying out public excecutiions for minor offenses.

But that may be simply because:
1. Those religions are not as wide spread as others.
2. The culture of the people where those religions are prevalent is different.
3. You simply don't read the media reports relating to those religions.
etc.
4. There aren't any countries in which those religions are considered state religions, or where the extremists have the upper hand.
and so on.
I can assure you that in India, some Hindus will kill each other for what you might consider 'minor offenses'.

I personally don't think it is the religion that matters most but other factors such as culture, education levels, conflicts, etc.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Extremist <-> fundamentalist

I say that only fundamentalists can be extremists. Right or wrong?
I say that in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist before. Right or wrong?

So without fundamentalists there cannot be any extremists. Right or wrong?

Extremism = ideas outside of society's perceived centre.
Contrasted against moderation; in extreme degree often
advocating severe measures.

Fundamentalism = strict adherance to principles, maintenance of
traditional fundamental / basic views to ideology / religion.


Both used often to (negatively) describe other belief systems, used interchangeably but not necessarily the same. Generally understood by the public / media as the same - however, groups may describe themselves as fundamental (following a set of beliefs to the law) without being extreme...

same same but different?!

Originally posted by black beetle
It seems to me that a fundamentalist can be an extremist or not; an extremist is a fanatic fundamentalist activist who gives not a fig for the secular law. Extremism is the deep will of specific teams to promote their opinions and their ideals by means of brutal force and through radical political and social activism. Extremists have not the sense of e ...[text shortened]... ted with fanatisicm and with the quality of one's activism, not with fundamentalism itself.

And as I read this I realise that I have to stand corrected. The second phrase of my above mentiond post goes as following:

"an extremist is a fanatic, fundamentalist or not, activist who gives not a fig for the secular law."

I am sorry for the inconvenience.

I must note that when I was at University, a number of petty thieves were stoned to death by the students. This is in a self proclaimed Christian nation, and most of the students involved were Christian.