"ISIS is not Islamic

[robvalue]

Marssims: The way I see it, there are four approaches to these "holy books":

1) Literal reading, assuming every word is supposed to mean exactly what it says
2) Non-literal interpretation, which can be anything you like, there are no rules except as set by individual sects
3) As a historical document, to try and examine which events might have really happened, which didn't, which were intended to be literal, and what we can learn about the cultures at the time
4) A fictional story loosely based around historical events

Sadly, options 3 and 4 are generally closed to everyone within the religion who worships the book. In this way they end up under-appreciating what their book really tells us.

If you're just assuming the stuff is somehow real (you're in the religion), I say there's still no correct choice between 1 and 2 because no one knows for sure exactly which parts are intended to be literal. So as far as I'm concerned, everyone who says they are a Muslim is a Muslim, and I don't rate any "interpretation" over any other, for truth value. I rate them all as zero, bar demonstrable historical events.

Of course, I would far prefer people interpreted the books so as to ignore the horrific parts. This has been the recent trend with Christianity, since the OT barbarity does not gel with civilized secular law. Islam seems to make concessions too, but fewer and more grudgingly. From my experience, your average "moderate" Muslim holds more extreme views than your average "moderate" Christian. I may be wrong of course, it's hard to get accurate data on these things.