As you know, terrorists recently killed twelve people in Paris. They did it in the name of their religion, Islam, but even though the vast majority of Muslim organisations and individuals across the planet have condemned the attack and actions of these men, innocent people are now being blamed and targeted, their only connection with the terrorists being that they happen to believe in the same god.
The problem with fanatics is that they are the ones who are more accurately interpreting scripture. It's the moderates who cherry-pick the good stuff while ignoring all the evil verses of their holy books.
Er, no. What do you base your assumptions on?
Therefore, one could easily make the argument that it's the terrorists who truly represent Islam, while the majority of muslims ignore large parts of the Quran and just live their lives like normal human beings. Just like Christians, they go to the mosque once a week to compare clothes. 
Actually, no. You are basing your argument on a faulty assumption.
I don't know if the brothers spoke Arabic; they might have. I am pretty sure, however, that they did not speak the Arabic of the Quran as originally transcribed. The language has changed significantly.
Here's the thing: Muslims consider *any* translation of the Quran an interpretation because according to their beliefs, the Quran is God's actual words and as such divine. The words themselves are divine and therefore untouchable. They are, verbatim, God's words.
This presents a couple of problems, of which the most important is that in Islam, only the original version can be considered to actually contain God's message(s), which means that basically only the ones who actually know the Arabic of the Quran as spoken (and written) then can with any reasonable accuracy convey those messages, let alone interpret them.
So, in order to convey the message, you need to not only know the ancient language, but also the cultural and sociological context of the time, plus the more obvious fact that you need to be a Muslim and in a position of authority--effectively, you need to be an Imam. AFAIK, the Sunni Imams tend to mostly lead services in mosques and provide services to that effect, while the Shia Imams sometimes have a far more central role. Both, of course, include the clarifying of possibly different interpretations of God's words; many Muslims read the Quran but merely reading a translation or even the original Arabic does not grant you the right of interpretation.
This means that the power and *range* of an interpretation varies.
From a scholarly point of view, when interpreting the Quran, the source itself is, of course, paramount, but after it follow a number of secondary sources, such as the sayings of Muhammad (known as the Hadith), the tales told by Mohammad's companions, the second-generation followers, and so on.
So what all this means is that while the basics of how to interpret the Quran are fairly accepted as described above, pretty much everything else varies because the religion is fragmented and there is no single accepted interpretation of anything in the book.
This applies whenever clarifying a passage in the Quran. Any passage.
So please tell me how the terrorists' interpretation of the Quran is somehow more right than the majority's. Muslim communities across the globe have condemned the attacks, including leaders from both of the major factions.
