Oppo
Member
ok so my understanding is that about half of Muslim countries have this codified in law, where are they getting it from?
What ISIS Really Wants (The Atlantic)
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
- Status
ok so my understanding is that about half of Muslim countries have this codified in law, where are they getting it from?
Maninthemirror
Banned
well the Quran is pretttyyyy clear about it
Chapter 88
Verse 22-27
22- You are only an Admonisher, nothing else
23- You are not appointed a ruler over people
24- Whoever turns away and disbelieves (knowingly without coercion of facts)
25- Allah alone will punish him with the greatest punishment (hell)
26- They will get their judgement on judgement day
27- It is up to God to make them accountable
These verses are pretty clear cut and there are many others like it
the laws in muslim countries are out of thin air. they are Islam by name only, not by Action
Maninthemirror
Banned
yes. the laws are out of thin air created by clerics who themselves have skipped over verses which would overrule their rule. AKA its all politics
Oppo
Member
over half the muslin countries pulled "death for apostasy" from their butts? over half of the population supports it? surely they GOT this idea from somewhere dude.
Maninthemirror
Banned
yes. that is the reform that is required. removal of these so called laws because they are nowhere in the religion they profess to practice. if we remove such laws, that solves half the issues people have. They got this idea from Wahabbism and Maudoodism for the most part but also due to clerics wanting political rule and keeping people out of the loop (most being uneducated or aloof)
captainnapalm
Member
All this talk about ancient religious beliefs and the apocalypse and all that is nonsense. No sane, honest, clued-up political commentator would frame Isis in this way.
They are not some throwback to hundreds of years ago - they are the direct end product of what has been happening in the middle east for the last 50-60 years, and the last 10 in particular. They are a funded and directed, quasi-military, mercenary force - the logical next step to all the violence and covert interference and toppling of governments and regimes - all the stoking of violence in the middle east.
As usual, all the same media sources, all the same politicians and pundits who have dishonestly framed the western-backed injustices in the middle east - are the ones now trying to frame this battle in strictly religious terms - like we now have some ancient new enemy and it's the Crusades all over again. Actually it's easy to trace their origins back to what happened in places like Iraq and Syria and Libya within the last few years.
Seriously, its' one thing to be blind to history, but to be blind to shit that literally happened a few years ago? It's like the West continuously adopts this posture of complete short-term memory loss so it can just continue to justify the exact same failed policies and criminal behaviour that got us to where we are now.
They are not some throwback to hundreds of years ago - they are the direct end product of what has been happening in the middle east for the last 50-60 years, and the last 10 in particular. They are a funded and directed, quasi-military, mercenary force - the logical next step to all the violence and covert interference and toppling of governments and regimes - all the stoking of violence in the middle east.
As usual, all the same media sources, all the same politicians and pundits who have dishonestly framed the western-backed injustices in the middle east - are the ones now trying to frame this battle in strictly religious terms - like we now have some ancient new enemy and it's the Crusades all over again. Actually it's easy to trace their origins back to what happened in places like Iraq and Syria and Libya within the last few years.
Seriously, its' one thing to be blind to history, but to be blind to shit that literally happened a few years ago? It's like the West continuously adopts this posture of complete short-term memory loss so it can just continue to justify the exact same failed policies and criminal behaviour that got us to where we are now.
Miles Quaritch
Member
If the Quran doesn't support the killing of apostates, maybe clerics pulled that BS from their ass and convinced the less educated masses to go along with it?
Not that different to how Christianity used to be interpreted by holy men back in the day due to a lack of education from those they ruled over.
This is far easier said than done. I agree it needs to happen, far more often, but in my part of the world, there are a lot of Muslims who agree with the outcome of Charlie Hebdo. Religious critique is akin to blasphemy, no matter the intentions behind it. Case in point, see Raif Badawi.
Stereogatari
Banned
I did but it wasn't perfect. Not enough focus on the geopolitics and Saddam old guard for me or indeed how they were initially a branch of Al-Qaeda.
m_shortpants
Member
tfur
Member
Christianity is by definition the New Testament. The Old Testament is referenced to use a supporting material. Either side likes or does not like some of either Old or New contents at times.
Also, yes, I believe the philosophy of the New Testament is innately more peaceful than Islam. The written words certainly are. You will not see words compelling killing, but more about forgiving and meekness. That is not to say that God is not violent or killing, but it does not promote its followers to kill.
I am talking about the written words. I am not talking about anything about cultures, people, countries or anything else. Just the direct written words that you can read for yourself.
This is the reason, as I have brought up in the past, that there is a rather large discrepancy in the chronology of the philosophies and metaphysics. The idea that you go from philosophy of peace and forgiveness, to a philosophy that directly asks its followers to kill is quite a breakdown.
You cannot believe Jesus was a prophet, and then accept that Mohammed followed from the same philosophy when you are directly instructed to kill infidels. You cannot hand wave about tribes and needs to kill, and then somehow wrap that into what is supposed to be direct philosophy. It simply does not follow.
Are we to believe that the angel Gabriel somehow pops up a few years after Jesus to come with a philosophy that sanctions its believers, not God(usually its God that is tasked to do the judgments and killing etc), but its believers that they should have a reason to kill? Forget what this guy preached and said just a few years ago, it's okay to kill now...
I have struggled with the lack of coherence and consistency in the chain of philosophy for some time.
You've been told repeatedly that you have no authority to decide who pratice "his" religion correctly, and still you insist that their interpretation is not correct and yours is, ignoring the absurd paradox of refusing integralism by predicating another form of integralism, basically "others are wrong, but it's not their fault they're not intelligent enough" crap that was used to discriminate minorities for centuries by christians.
And yes, young earth creationists are no less christians than progressive catholics.
Deal with it.
Jag
Member
According to this, it came from the Hadiths, not the Quran. The article made is sound like part of the Quran.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Whew that was a long good read. I see what the author is saying.
I still don't consider ISIS as an organization that understands islam, even if they claim to act as it dictates.. if that puts me in the same basket as the "infidels" then so be it.
I still don't consider ISIS as an organization that understands islam, even if they claim to act as it dictates.. if that puts me in the same basket as the "infidels" then so be it.
Yep. It sounds like White Man's Burden justifications for British Imperialism. Propagandized justification for looting and killing in the name of power.
i loled
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yep. The "it has nothing to do with Islam" apologists that show up in every single thread about these and other Islamic extremists are damn annoying. Yes, it DOES have something to do with Islam. Very much, in fact. Perhaps not with the interpretation of Islam you deem to be the "correct" one, but that's irrelevant. "Not true Islam" is simply a bullshit excuse. It's a horrific interpretation, but does that inherently make it any less "true"? You have one interpretation that you strongly believe in, these monsters have another one that they believe equally strongly in. And it's not like it's beyond the realm of reason to interpret the texts that way.
Maninthemirror
Banned
You want me to deal with you giving Daesh view legitimacy?
People who want them to be islamic in the sense that they are really following what the text actually says have to say it or else who is their best argument proof. The 20% radicalists (number provided by Sam Harris) being more islamic over the 80% non violent muslims argument is really the only way their argument can survive. I mean you can say it but that doesn't mean it's true. Its a foolish uneducated statement but it doesn't make it true because you say it over moderate muslims heads.
I mean the argument defies logic but then again so does Daesh interpretation which is what people who think Islam is Daesh support as well
it will be hilarious when Daesh eventually dies suddenly people will scurry to Boko Haram and then something else. The more Daesh acts the more people are pulled away from fundamentalism the more this Daesh is whar Islam is argument is diminishes. In 20 years I will look back and laugh and Islam as a faith haters will be running around looking for a new group to idolize as Islamic
Don't confuse a cause for its effect. Their ideology is real and they believe what they say they believe.
Jag
Member
Is Italy really under threat by ISIS? I can't imagine that the EU, the US or NATO would ever allow this to happen.
Muslims criticize Daesh/ISIS/Al-Qaeda types all the damn time. One of the main and most effective ways that they do it is by saying they're not following Islam correctly and/or at all.
You know something that really undermines us from doing this? Assholes like the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel in the article saying that Muslims who speak against Daesh/ISIS/Al-Qaea have "a cotton-candy view of their own religion”. What a fucking dangerous moron. And to see so many people lapping up his bullshit with a spoon is depressing to say the least.
Maninthemirror
Banned
This is true. When a Muslim criticised Daesh and says your view is unislamic the haters of Islam give the standard response, well Daesh are following Islam, thus trying to undermine the focus of moderates instead of saying yes moderate muslims is what Islam is and should be and Daesh is not what Islam is and should be. Legitimizing Daesh is just one way of Daesh to think itself as legitimate
Moderate muslims then have to ask the question: are people really wanting to help us or rid of us railroading common muslims going after fundamentalists. Do people view us as necessary collateral while going after Daesh ideology
I find it kind of hilarious we even have to debate who is interpreting fairy tales correctly in the 1st place. There is no "correct" interpretation of complete horse shit.
Guess what? You are all wrong. Christian/jews/muslims/whatever, completely 100% wrong about everything.
Ol No Bones
Banned
You are thinking of Jehovah's witnesses. Biblically speaking no one knows the day or the hour.
It's not muslims who speak out against ISIS, it's the muslims in denial that there is a muslim group out there who are aiming to bring back the litteral lifestyle that the Prophet had.
Crucifixion, slavery and not recognising other authority than God by not recognising borders.
Stereogatari
Banned
Also Muslims need to admit there are dodgy verses and texts within their religion that can be used to justify ISIS-like acts.
titiklabingapat
Member
I largely agree with the premise of the article, and I agree not to underestimate the Deash, but the idea that they can conquer Istanbul is laughable short of a complete failure of the Turkish State.
Deash completely falls apart when faced with a functioning government.The only reason they are running around Syria is the civil war there. They are going to be contained in Iraq as well.
Deash completely falls apart when faced with a functioning government.The only reason they are running around Syria is the civil war there. They are going to be contained in Iraq as well.
Ah right so you're saying that ISIS is 'more Islamic' than peaceful Muslims who criticize them by calling them Un-Islamic? That's horrific nonsense.
Fuck this. And who the hell are you, or Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, to decide that ISIS is following the example of the Prophet better than I do?
Stereogatari
Banned
Which I must reinforce, is as unlikely as the stable Western countries become failed states.
ISIS are morons that thrive on failed states. Iran, Turkey, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt etc. are untouched for a reason.
Maninthemirror
Banned
its pretty much fact that hadith are only authentic if they do not contradict the Quran from start to end. that is why many hadith verses are suspect when they contradict the Quran. Hadith were compiled 200-300 years after Islam began
Mr. Giggles
Member
I see what you're saying but you have to understand that most of those "apologists" have probably lived as and amongst the peacful tolerant muslim community and in my opinion are educated enough to understand what to take and what to leave from the quran.
So, yea, interpretation is important.
Maninthemirror
Banned
so the question is. if its a horrific interpretation which we can ALL agree here, why legitimize that as truly Islam over moderate interpretation. one would THINK people would rather have moderate interpretation over anything fundamentalist existing
Oppo
Member
But if the people support it in a plurality, which seems to be the case in these nations, even a democratically elected leader would have a death penalty for leaving the religion on the books. By your argument, MOST of the Muslim world is not 'authentically
As you can probably (?) tell I am getting at the same point as others on this page, which is that if it's left open to interpretation, no one's is 'correct', since there is no ruling body to speak of (they all call themselves the authority on the subject) and you inevitably turn to the fact that the thing being interpreted has a commonality.
One would think that one should keep one's religion to themselves and out of government.
Maninthemirror
Banned
people support it or are ruled over and forced to support it by living their lives on their own terms? Do you know what is in the hearts of all the individual people or are you making judgements for them
I am sorry I've been reading these threads about Islam on Neogaf for a while now (don't really contribute as most of the time others are saying what I want to say or I don't have the answer so posting would be muddying the water even more) and I keep seeing this admission of guilt concept being put out there, that if Muslims admit that their religion has spotty verses (parts) that somehow this will help the situation? How exactly would it help?
I am a Muslim and I admit some of the hadith and even parts of the quran when taken out of context (quran only) are spotty at best. Now what happens? How does a Muslim or a group of Muslims agreeing to this sentiment make anything better or improve the situation?
We aren't on a psychologists coach and muslims are not one man/women who is lying on the couch and telling his feelings to the doctor...admission of a religion having issues does nothing to solve the problem (problem being Al-Qaeda, ISIS, ETC.) IMO.
I am being genuine in saying this btw, I am trying to understand how this admission in people's view will solve the issue.
Maninthemirror
Banned
people want muslim to find a flaw in their own faith even when they dont find it, create one, thus diminishing their view of their faith by proxy and eventually years down the line, leave faith because its flawed and everyone is faithless.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Different groups of people have different interpretations of Islam. We can probably say this is true, given that people in this thread are providing one, and ISIS is providing another. So, question: why is that ISIS has the particular interpretation they have?
Maninthemirror
Banned
thats what clerics and governments do. you think governments and dictatorships and kings are the people themselves en-masse population wise? If you read the Quran from page 1 to end, you can pretty much guarantee Daesh are not following what Islam teaches even by a long shot
RustyNails
Member
There is a right and wrong inherent to religious ideology or any form of ideology. When you say that right and wrong are subjective to the whims of an individual, then there is no such thing as order in a society. An institution's job is there in society to interpret law. The vatican did it for Catholocs, and the Supreme Court does it for US citizens. John Q. Turd cannot get up one day and say "Well, I am going to raise an army. Damn the constitution". Well he can, but he wont last long. Similarly the role of Ulema was long enshrined in medievel Islamic politics. The tradition of deriving rule and law is a science of fiqh (Islamic Jurispidence), for which you really do need a mastery of various legal disciplines and thought. After all, the first degree granting institutions were invented in medievel Islamic Morocco (University of Qarawiyyin), and the first degree granted was a graduate degree in Islamic Jurispudence. The takfiri ideology has done away with this cherished tradition in favor of uneducated, layman-istic, John Q. Turd version of right and wrong. An appeal to the tradition of scholastic learning and deliberation is set aside in favor of firebreathers like Anjem Choudhary and that psychotic Cerantonio. The lettertobaghdadi website touches on some of these aspects, such as the intricate knowledge needed in understanding of all 4 different school of thoughts (Madhaib), in order to issue a single fatwa. What me and other "apologists" are saying is the tradition of deliberation and judgement has a ton lot more established basis and history than violent zealotry opposed to anything that reuires thinking.
What I find personally disgusting is people coming in and telling me that I'm not really a Muslim.. those ISIS people with their mass executions and crimes against humanity? Now THERE'S REAL ISLAM.
Fuck that noise.
Fuck that noise.
That's a good question. It's impossible to have that conversation when I'm being told they're the real Muslims and I'm not.
Maninthemirror
Banned
if they dont view it as real islam they would have to view moderates as actually following islamic text which demoralizes their argument against their faith. its the only argument they have unfortunately
I mean, I can understand you find this offensive, but you can't deny they are serious in bringing back the bronze age traditions of Mohammad that have long been abandonned by modern Muslims.
I doubt you have to deal with your slaves, or how you will deal once you capture pagan women? Or justifying crucifixion?
My point is the Koran, like the Bible, can be used as a warrant to commit digusting and horrible acts.
Maninthemirror
Banned
actually Moderate Muslims follow the true traditions of Mohammad (saw) more than Daesh members. Your view of Islam is BUILT upon select out of context Quranic verses and badly sourced Hadith. this is EXACTLY how Daesh view Islam as well. the irony
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Anyone can interpret something to fit their agenda. Someone can watch James Cameron's Avatar and conclude thereby that destroying trees is a good thing.
What needs to happen though, is for people who believe that trees are sacred, to also understand that Sully helped the destruction of trees under the circumstance.
These are two separate things. The correct view is obviously that trees are not to be destroyed, but it should also be underlined that Sully, for whatever reason, was at some point responsible for the destruction of trees.
What needs to happen though, is for people who believe that trees are sacred, to also understand that Sully helped the destruction of trees under the circumstance.
These are two separate things. The correct view is obviously that trees are not to be destroyed, but it should also be underlined that Sully, for whatever reason, was at some point responsible for the destruction of trees.
1. I do.
2. Muhammed didn't live in the Bronze Age
3. These ISIS assholes aren't following the Prophet's traditions.
You really don't get to decide who's a true Muslim and who's not. Neither does Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel or Sam Harris.
Oppo
Member
Honestly this does in fact sound like progress to me.
I'd at least like to, y'know, try it.
You can dance all day on this point (I know you can) but it will never get you anywhere.Maninthemirror said:
- Status