First what is Islamic extremists? One who follows Islam in extreme way, right? If Islamf doesn't teach people to kill non-muslims? Are they really extremisits? Or people who don't even know what Islam tells? The problem here is most terrorists are brainwashed when they were kids. They twist it very hard that kids can't be came back to normal easily. When they mature, they gives them duties like attacking certain places. It is like training dogs. Well, I ain't saying they are dogs, just comparing the action done here. Consider it as a metaphor or something. We can't catch the "person" who brainwash kids because he/she will tell them to suicide if they are caught and also mostly, they interact with each other using a third party/person. So that even if they are caught, they don't know who injected terrorism into their mind.

 Islamic extremists don't bother about most things except spending almost all of their time for praying. So I don't know how terrorists can Islamic extremists as they contradicts Islamic teachings/rules.

It is because in Islam it was easier for priests to be powerful. Since The prophet Mohammad was a leader as well as a preacher it gave the impression that a leader can be a preacher as well. Guess what people in power preached since Mohammad died?

The message is alive, But people are people. Ever since he died until the present day. I won't even have to say which countries because it is pretty obvious. Where the leaders are the preachers. And they happily bend and twist Islam to fit their needs everyday.

Okay, I will indulge and dip my feet here. So you question was


And you do not think his answer was sufficient and explanatory enough. Okay,

For me I would say that what you are thinking of is the association by the media. Most of it is not blatant lies but it is not correct. You see the Arab world is a very disturbed place. All governments there are  puppets to who will feed them more and tyrants to who asks them to be fed off their own land and resources. Every single entity that would go against any of them is labelled a "terrorist group" by the media. Jihad means to strive and to struggle and it perfectly fits their causes. You hear the word and you see blood and explosions and the media associating it with "terrorism" and voila, "Terrorist are always identifying with the Islamic Faith". But you see back then in the period so called the cold war the association was against the Russians. they had others before that and they will have others after Muslims and Arabs. This is summed nicely in the theory of war-economy and how it is expected to get worse and worse very soon in the upcoming year.

Also -even though I don't condone and approve, But understand- if you consider the events of terrorism and not how these involved people came to be, I think you are among terrorists and you don't even know it, Especially if you are a US citizen. Take for example the people who crashed the airplaces in 9/11. Horrible right? Thousands died and so much was lost. Do you understand that those people did not need to be brainwashed? Thousands of deaths is something that happened to them on daily basis by the Americans and foreigners that came bringing "freedom" and only brought blood to the old and the young, to the girls and women. Is their struggle less understandable of an American because he was "disturbed" with a falling building when he was drinking his coffee in Starbucks? Because he felt sad about a couple of thousands that he most likely met here and there and never even said hi? These people lost mothers and fathers and friends. They saw buildings fall over them along with their families (Acceptable causality?). they saw mothers raped and neighbours accused and killed, in the name of "freedom". Yes blood came locally for many many years but that is not an excuse to come and spill more blood in the name of false "freedom".

War is ugly and none in the game that is not to be blamed, Some just have better news channels and control over the media. The ones you call terrorists are the ones every overseas-wars-supporter helped make.

We have a new internet protocol. It's called IPv6. It was officially released in 2012, and as of April 2015, it's used by roughly 5% of connected devices, according to Google.

But, if you connect via IPv6, do you notice? Well, no. These technologies operate on “layers”, and the IP layer is below the Bitcoin layer. Even if we were on IPv8, it wouldn't affect Bitcoin's protocol a bit.

My name is Muhammed Zakir not Mohamet Zakir.

What type of answer are you looking for? I may not be able to answer in a way you think. However, if you can clarify a bit, it will be helpful. As I have mentioned earlier, either I will have to make my English better or you will have to know Malayalam for a better answer. Sorry if it isn't answer your question but I can't understand "why" it isn't an answer to your question.

Shame on you Mohamet Zakir! How can you miss his question! it is just mere 50 pages! you should go back and forth and review all posts, I cannot trust you too. this is a valid metric to estalish how untrustworthy you are....  

#1: Can you explain "Islamic faith"? There isn't any such Islamic faith you are claiming. They are using wrong faith.
#2: Jihad means to strive; to struggle.
#3: Islam is for all human beings from the living of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). However, there is no rule to force any person to become Muslim and forcing is against Islamic teachings. They should become Muslim at their own will.
(Optional)#4: You have some misunderstanding about some things.


Thanks for your input. Was the last questions to me? I didn't get you correctly. I should prove all muslims aren't terrorist?

We should analyze the word 'terrorism'. Everyone who provide terror (a real terror) to a group of person with a weapon, knife etcetera ... By the definition is a terrorist, now the history can speak itself because not all the Muslim are terrorist and not all the terrorist are muslim. I think it's wrong to link the word Islam to the word terrorism, can you explain to us why aren't all the muslim terrorists?

How so?

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is [hyper]real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is [hyper]real and begets hyperreality.

(Red colorization mine.)



It is a (post-)modern “matter” (r3wt) that besieges even the common man.

Yes, you are right. They think Islam tells to be a terrorist but Islam doesn't tell it. I don't have any sort of Oracle skill, so I can't say better. Plain English sometimes are a little hard to swallow and/or to digest.

I have told many times Islam doesn't say to be a terrorist but still they give news saying muslims killed x people.

Do you acknowledge that you can believe the hyperreal (i.e., a network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) to be real (here, reference something else)?

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”

“[R]ight” (r3wt) cannot be “do[ne]” (r3wt) because it does not reference the real (wherein, one acts).

As an aside, the dates above are 𝑏 E.A. (lit., "earthly Anthropocene").

(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else?