Unlike Eastern religions, Western ones – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – have a normative nature. Reciting the scripture does not give its member just spiritual sense but creates norms for them to be applied in their daily life. Many dos and don'ts of the scriptures are clear enough to see this normative character, but these holy texts cannot speak but their interpreters do on their behalf. And they interpret them within an interpretive context that is geohistorically, geoculturally and geopolitically rather different from one another. This is the reason why there are conflicts not just among those who believe and those who do not but among the believers of the same holy text, as well. Through ‘out of context quotations,’ some so-called devout members can easily distort the very meaning of the text, and thus transform it into a source of uproar and chaos rather than a source of peace and serenity. Considering this historical experience, this paper distinguishes between the scripture and historical phenomena it has created in order to criticize the essentialist approach that identifies the scripture with its members. Most importantly, this paper tries to show how some politically-minded people transform a spiritual and practical guide first into an ideology then into political capital. In this context the following titles will be dealt with: the Islam of identity and the Islam of truth; subordination of scripture to the politics: the position of Islamists and ‘ulam$\bar{\rm a}$ in contemporary Islam; para-mosque structures and transformation Islam into Islamism; neo-Orientalism, essentialism and contingencies about scripture and its relation to Muslim behavior; jihad and associate terms; and suicide bombings and their (un)justification.