Do Muslims have a responsibility to address radicalism?

Two points:

(a) That article says that the mosque leaders did know.

(b) About half of all UK mosques have Salafi or Deobandi-trained preachers - a surefire way to guarantee extremism.

Nope. They probably just minding their own business like you and I

1. Why do you not reply to my statement that 2-3% is NOT representative of the UK Muslim population

2. The guys in the article do not belong to the salafi sect. A LOT of pakistani scholars like that guy belong to an innovative sufi sect.

3. Why is being salafi/deobandi a surefire way of guaranteeing extremism? I follow the salaf and so do a lot of people. It is the one sect that does not innovate in the religion and practices Islam EXACTLY how it was practiced by Muhammed (peace and prayers upon him) and the following generation (the salaf). This is a fact that noone denies.

Seriously though what has extremism to do with salafism? I see this all the time in the papers and by other sects. I'm confused. Salafis follow the Quran and hadiths (Muhammed's sayings and actions) strictly in line with what Muhammed explained directly or by his followers in the next 3 generations (something he instructed us to do to avoid wrong interpretations).
And NOWHERE in our teachings does it promote extremism. Absolutely nowhere. You go into Green Lane Mosque (salafi mosque) in Birmingham or East London Mosque in London and ask one of their scholars what does salafism say about extremism.

TLDR: Stop using Daily Mail/hate speech as your source of islamic information.

1. Why do you not reply to my statement that 2-3% is NOT representative of the UK Muslim population

2. The guys in the article do not belong to the salafi sect. A LOT of pakistani scholars like that guy belong to an innovative sufi sect.

3. Why is being salafi/deobandi a surefire way of guaranteeing extremism? I follow the salaf and so do a lot of people. It is the one sect that does not innovate in the religion and practices Islam EXACTLY how it was practiced by Muhammed (peace and prayers upon him) and the following generation (the salaf). This is a fact that noone denies.

Seriously though what has extremism to do with salafism?

TLDR: Stop using Daily Mail/hate speech as your source of islamic information.

A literal, Salafi, interpretation of the scripture is the source of today's extremism. To stay in the seventh century is to stay within Mohammed's desert war, and with mediaeval morality.

I never read the Daily Mail, or any tabloid, unless someone points out something in it occasionally.

You, an ignorant non-muslim who has no idea of what goes on in muslim communities have just literally ignored everything I said as an in-the-know salafi muslim about my own sect.

Please re-read my previous post. Salafism has zero links to extremism. The ISIS lot are called khawaarij, not salafis.

Well said. 😊

I agree. Peole read the tabloids and they get drawn into terriost thinking themselves. ha ha what a joke!!!!

Is talking to yourself the only way to get a good conversation?

Bull Xxxt. Muslims are integrated. American's policy is to destroy us Muslims but it's not going to happen. We growing stronger and stronger

I've not been talking about ISIS at all. I'm more concerned with those who are more numerous but follow literal interpretations and think that is a good thing. It isn't; it is the biggest problem with Islam in the west, and the cause of non-integration.

I agree. Peole read the tabloids and they get drawn into terriost thinking themselves. ha ha what a joke!!!!

Is talking to yourself the only way to get a good conversation?

So which interpretations count?

What does literal interpretation mean? This is what's wrong with unknowledgeable muslims and critics of Islam. Criticise the religion all you want intrinsically but stop comparing Islam to Christianity where "everyone's interpretations count" and "anyone can interpret God's words". We just don't have that in Islam. Muhammad (peace and prayers upon him) prevented this from happening.

He said anyone that introduces something to Islam that we have not introduced (interpretations/actions/beliefs) then it is rejected. He also said that every newly invented matter is a misguidance and all that misguides leads to the fire. There are several more narrations like this that noone disputes. This is a fundamental concept of our religion. A law from within (this is why I mentioned intrinsice above).

So which interpretations count?

Muhammed said to hold to HIS interpretation and of his four closest companions especially. He said that his generation is the best (his companions) and then he said it is the next three generations after him. All interpretations are to be taken from his generation and the next three for any Quranic verse and hadith. He also said that Islamic rulings are clear and we should stay away from any grey areas. (Again, these are all authentic sayings of his that noone disputes).

Now if I'm a salafi who ain't apologetic about his religion (unlike the majority of muslims) and I follow all the islamic rules rather than pick and choose (which is what most muslims do) . . . How on Earth am I not integrating with the West? I absolutely guarantee you I have contributed more to society than you (a non-muslim) have and I most likely will do in the future as well (current 1st year med student).

TLDR: Find me one quote from the Quran which says or implies "YOU MUSLIMS BEST NOT INTEGRATE WITH THOSE DASTARDLY NON MUSLIMS IN THE WEST. OH AND BTW MAKE SURE YOU BLOW THEM ALL UP AS WELL AS YOURSELVES"

Don't get me wrong. I agree that, according to the Koran, a literal interpretation is the only right one.

Unfortunately, it is also the one that uses least common sense for the modern world and condemns Islam (and Moslems) to live in the atmosphere of seventh century desert warfare of Arabia. It has a backward-looking and vengeful morality, condemns Moslems to ineffective integration into western society, and breeds mistrust.

Here we go.. Another extremist who isn't a Muslim. 👍🏽 get a life man and stop quoting things.

You ignored the parts of my reply that you had no reply to. The part that challenged you to provide evidence rather than rely on personal conjecture.