The reason I use the word 'extremist' is because it is widely understood and basically established to be, well, a radical and violent person.
But, as per your request, I will clarify.
An extremist/Islamist/Jihadist or whatever you wish to call them is someone who:
a) Believes in an exaggerated, usually false and inciting narrative
b) Only looks at the parts of Islam he/she interprets to be violent and ignores the part that is peaceful.
c) Uses religion as a tool to accomplish political goals and/or justify violence
Yes, I realized that that is what you meant by the word. The rest of my post was based on the assumption that that was the sense in which it is being used. Which obviously excludes most practitioners of most forms of islam. However, the trouble that I see in the world is that plenty of "moderates" act as enablers for the existence of "extremists". The only difference is that the "extremists" are willing to do violence for the same beliefs. (To clarify, I am not saying that all muslims hold these beliefs. I'm not talking about you or your friends or mine. But in the real world, many people who consider themselves "moderate" hold the very same beliefs. The only difference is that they condemn extremists when the latter do something like this. For example, ponder over this question - how many muslims do you know, who would agree that insulting Islam or the prophet should be a crime? Punishable by law, either by imprisonment or death? Are you sure that all the people who are excluded from the definition of "extremist" do not hold such beliefs?)
Islam is not the problem, if that's what you're asking.
No, I wasn't asking about Islam in general. If that's what I meant, I would also be hashtagging #killallmuslims. I was asking about
certain particular beliefs held by some, if not many muslims. That is why I used the term "belief", not "religion". As you know, Islam is not just one belief, but a set of many. (Like most other religions.) Also, many practicing muslims do not agree on every single one of those beliefs. So to take one example, if many practicing muslims believe that somebody who insults the prophet should be killed, is that belief not a problem? Even though the rest of their beliefs are not a problem?
I haven't. No one from my family has. None of my friends have. Many Muslims have,yes, in direct contradiction to Islam. So what they did and advocated is in no way representative of the religion itself - rather, it is in opposition of the religion. The ones doing the violence were mostly the uneducated political-mullah crowd and yes, admittedly, they have more than a little Influence. (i.e a lot - way too much than is healthy)
That's my point. Not you in particular, but many muslims do agree with Khomeini on that one. It may be contradictory to islam, but the effects of a religion are determined by the actions of its practitioners, not by whatever the original intent or teaching was. Which is why, as earlier, I wasn't blaming islam itself, but the fact that many muslims hold certain beliefs which extremists merely act upon.
There was a survey done recently in Egypt (a largely moderate country), which showed that 80% of the people wanted the death sentence for blasphemy. Surely, we wouldn't consider 80% of a large country like Egypt to be extremists? Which is why, as I said, certain beliefs held even by moderates act as enablers for extremists.
Extremists doesn't just mean terrorists. All of those who supported the fatwa are mistaken and extremists as per my definition.
Here it gets problematic. I will have to believe you if you say so, but are you really sure about this? If so, that would make a ver big chunk of muslims "extremists". Even many people on this forum, and possibly on this thread, and many people who have sincerely condemned this particular attack in France. I personally know lots of people who wouldn't go around killing or bombing anybody, but do agree that SR deserved the fatwa. That's just my real world observation.
Khomeini disobeyed God and his Prophet by issuing that fatwa and according to Islamic Law, he should be tried for trying to cause injustice, disrespecting the Qur'an, spreading corruption in the land and takfir.
My point was only about the issuance of the fatwa, not the other political good or bad things Khomeini has done. And Khomeini was just an example that occured to me. I'll try to make it much more direct - would you support the complete abolition of blasphemy laws from Pakistan and all islamic countries, since you believe that they are contradictory to islam? Even if you would, how many Pakistanis or muslims in general do you think would. What percentage of muslims would agree that everybody should have the freedom to insult Islam or the prophet? To mock their most cherished beliefs and revered figures? I can't prove it, but it is my feeling that a large section of muslims would not agree.
BTW, to answer something you asked in your first post, you do not have to take any blame or responsibility for the action of other muslims. Each person individually is to blamed or praised for their actions alone. I have said this in another context, about Indian muslims. There was a desecration of a patriotic memorial in India by a muslim, and many Indian members were asking why the muslim community is not condemning it. I explained that muslims in particular need not be expected to swear their patriotism or loyalty, any more than hindus should be, every time a hindu commits a crime. Unless you have had any part in these attacks, or at least in spreading the beliefs (the particular beliefs, not islam in general) that led to these attacks, you are in no way responsible.
