Support NeoGAF

[Prine]

Except people are joining ISIS from all over the world, even people who have great living circumstances and environments. So no, you don't have to live in a war torn country to be an extremist.

I agree with you, anyone is susceptible to extremist thought, regardless of religion or not. A bad person will use what they can to justify their beliefs.

 

[injurai]

When it grows to a more livid form eventually when you criticise the faith of those who those people in the country who are not doing anything to you eventually society will shift from criticising it to hating it if it goes unchecked in any society.

That's a slippery slope argument. A minute ago you were conflating criticism and hate. Now your saying criticism when delivered with more contempt and livid energy will tend towards hate? That critics can't help but begin in sighting hate. That's disparaging of people's own self-control. It's also patronizing as your saying people couldn't possibly distinguish for themselves the boundaries between hate and criticism.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

Was listening to Sean Hannity show on the radio on the way home for work (in before anyone tries to tell me Sean is a retard...spare me please) and he had two gentlemen on his show, one was an Islam scholar who originally was Islamic but converted to Christianity and the second man was a current Muslim priest (dunno what you call them) here in the US.

Sean was saying it's black and white in the Quran it says to kill those who don't believe in Islam and to not be friends with Christians or Jews.

The Islamic scholar said this is correct.

The Muslim priest was saying that this isn't followed by today's Muslim's because it was only representative of the past during the time that the Quran was written.

My question is...we have a religion that out right says to kill those who are non-believers, and do not be friends with Christians and Jews. ISIS is basically taking that word for word and carrying out what it says in the Quran. Meanwhile we have modern-day Muslims saying that's not right.

What gives here?

 

[Maninthemirror]

That's a slippery slope argument. A minute ago you were conflating criticism and hate. Now your saying criticism when delivered with more contempt and livid energy will tend towards hate? That critics can't help but begin in sighting hate. That's disparaging of people's own self-control. It's also patronizing as your saying people couldn't possibly distinguish for themselves the boundaries between hate and criticism.

I am saying criticism can easily turn into hate when the end game is to eliminate it from existent by not even accepting a peaceful faith as acceptable alternative

Was listening to Sean Hannity show on the radio on the way home for work (in before anyone tries to tell me Sean is a retard...spare me please) and he had two gentlemen on his show, one was an Islam scholar who originally was Islamic but converted to Christianity and the second man was a current Muslim priest (dunno what you call them) here in the US.

Sean was saying it's black and white in the Quran it says to kill those who don't believe in Islam and to not be friends with Christians or Jews.

The Islamic scholar said this is correct.

The Muslim priest was saying that this isn't followed by today's Muslim's because it was only representative of the past during the time that the Quran was written.

My question is...we have a religion that out right says to kill those who are non-believers, and do not be friends with Christians and Jews. ISIS is basically taking that word for word and carrying out what it says in the Quran. Meanwhile we have modern-day Muslims saying that's not right.

What gives here?

Did Sean Hannity argue angrily with that cleric? If not you know what he wanted to do there

 

[Jotaka]

Sean was saying it's black and white in the Quran it says to kill those who don't believe in Islam and to not be friends with Christians or Jews.

The Islamic scholar said this is correct.

The Muslim priest was saying that this isn't followed by today's Muslim's because it was only representative of the past during the time that the Quran was written.
What gives here?

As you have said they are following what is written. If the christian followed what is written in the Bible is would be doing the same shit. But thanks to modern society most people have better moral standards than these old books... these people just need a little push to complete throw out it and be more happy.

 

[injurai]

I am saying criticism can easily turn into hate when the end game is to eliminate it from existent by not even accepting a peaceful faith as acceptable alternative

The Christianity I come from is decidedly peaceful and moderate in the sense that you are talking about. It doesn't mean that It doesn't cause problems. I would very much like to see it or many aspects of it go the way side. People suspend good moral and ethical judgement because of the contrivations of a 2000 year old book. They impede social progress, shame impressionable youth for natural feelings. The outright reject rational thought because it leads to conclusion that contradict their holy book. This upsets me. Just because a religion has become placated, doesn't mean it's entirely innocuous.

I still respect people's faiths. I don't think that means they should be shielded though from other views. I think it's still very much fair to raise argument. It doesn't always even need to be from the basis of religion at that point. Once people are significantly moderate, you can argue views without asking them to entirely drop their faith.

I do as of this time, and my current understanding of the world and the evidence that exists. Think that their is no proof of a theistic god. So I reject the notion that we should write ourselves off as fallen and misguided. Instead I think many people may develop better ethics than those found in the Bible or Quran. That faith is not a virtue. So in light of that, I think the world would be better off without the shackles of theism which attempts to tell you how things are, and can't even provide evidence.

But I also think that life as it is, is filled of suffering. People need hope, they need the promise of a better world where none will be delivered to them by human hands in their lifetime. I wish to be respectful to this reality, because to be honest it's a modern privilege to have the understanding of the world that modern science has allowed. As are modern social and civil and political developments.

Even if I think most people could be capable of grappling with a non-theistic reality. Would be better off for it. Would be better people. I don't wish for that to be realized through hate. I wish for it to be achieved through crafting and honing our society to better provide for people. I wish for it to be realized through education, so it may be people's free will to take such a belief. And many people do just fine living with cognitive dissonances. I actually find myself saying that to be a bit patronizing, but when it's what others ask of you I'll oblige. I'll respect their belief even if they live with dissonances.

 

[soul creator]

I am saying criticism can easily turn into hate when the end game is to eliminate it from existent by not even accepting a peaceful faith as acceptable alternative

"moderate" religion is like Obamacare: sure, I'd still very much prefer single-payer health insurance, but it's still a welcome, positive (though still flawed in many ways), step forward regardless.

Preferring single-payer health care doesn't have to mean you reject everything else short of that, or that you "hate" everything else that's not single-payer (though some super hardcore liberals do that, which I disagree with).

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I am saying criticism can easily turn into hate when the end game is to eliminate it from existent by not even accepting a peaceful faith as acceptable alternative

I don't understand why you can't accept that people can criticise things (irrational thinking), without hating it and its followers. I would prefer that everyone adopted the ideas of critical thinking, skepticism and rationality, the world would be a completely different place. Atheism can be reached through irrationality, so I'm certainly not claiming that all (or even most) atheists are rational.

Atheism is also a single position on a single claim, it tells you nothing about how to live your life or what to believe.

Faith is the epitome of irrationality, some faiths are certainly preferable to others though, non-violent interpretations etc.

 

[y2dvd]

I am saying criticism can easily turn into hate when the end game is to eliminate it from existent by not even accepting a peaceful faith as acceptable alternative

Please quote where you are getting that people want to eliminate what I presume you are referring to as religion or in this particular case, Islam. I know it's not Harris, he said in the Maher/Affleck clip that we should defend those Muslims that wants to reform.

Most people don't like criticism because it points out the flaws. I don't like when my boss criticize my work. It's like eff you, that was my personal efforts that went into that. But you can't improve something without pointing out the mistakes. To say nothing is to never acknowledge the flaw.

 

[SkyOdin]

ISIS does not want peace. ISIS wants to bring about the apocalypse.

If your theory about poverty being the cause how do you explain bin laden? Why isn't there a fuckload more terrorism from all the people in poverty all over the world?

ISIS is just a collection of warlords seeking to increase their own power and influence. No, they don't want peace, they want to control, dominate, and grow rich off of the blood the shed. They use fear and sickening violence to assert that control.

There are two sides to this kind of warlordism: powerful and merciless leaders who seek to become dictators, and the poor and desperate people who are drawn into being their followers. Poverty, chaos, and despair create the later. The former are always lurking in the shadows.

As for why you don't see terrorism worldwide, the truth is that you just might not be paying attention. The mass executions and wholesale slaughter of communities that ISIS takes part in are sadly not rare. They have been happening in places across the world constantly through the entire 20th century, most typically in war-torn African countries. Early in the 20th century, China was in pretty similar straights. During the period prior to the establishment of the communist regime, the country was divided up by various infamous warlords, many of whom killed countless people.

The activities of ISIS are fairly typical for brutal conquerors and bloodthirsty warlords. We can see their kind of heartless massacre throughout history, and in many places around the world today.

 

[Dugna]

What if we colonized other planets or star systems before the apocalypse starts?

They would probably just shift it from being the earth's demise to the whole known universe disappearing just so they can keep the religion around. Though hopefully once we would colonize, things such as religion would be completely gone.

 

[Naked Snake]

Vox did a piece on this, selected quotes:

Obama should stop pretending Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam

While he has correctly identified economic and political factors that give rise to extremism, he has appeared to downplay or outright deny an awkward but important fact: religion plays an important role as well.
...
While ISIS's Islam is reviled and rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, the group and others like it are at least in part an earnest religious phenomenon, motivated by not-wholly-inaccurate revivals of puritanical medieval Islam, as well as by more modern — but still Islamic — strains of political Islamism. It is important for Americans to see that, and to see that their president sees it.
...
An honest reading of the Obama administration's policy response to ISIS makes it clear that the president understands that religion and religious devotion are playing a role in the rise of groups such as ISIS. His State Department, for example, is running a large, ambitious campaign, often in partnership with prominent Muslims, to counter ISIS's appeal. They are doing this in part by engaging Muslim communities with theological arguments against violent extremism. These policies only make sense if you see religion playing a significant role.
But that does not come through in Obama's statements. Part of the challenge is that, as president, he does not have the luxury of freely sharing his views. He has to consider the impact of his words, particularly in the context of an atmosphere in the US that is already primed for backlash against Muslims.
...
To be clear, Obama is correct to argue, as he has repeatedly in this speech and in the past, that "we are not at war with Islam." He is correct to say that Muslims in the United States should not be punished with discrimination or profiling for ISIS's crimes. It's important for the president to say these things.
Obama is right to push against Islamophobic conflations of ISIS with all Muslims and to refute jihadist fantasies of a holy war between Islam and the West — both points Bush made repeatedly as well.
Still, it is possible to combat Islamophobia and ISIS's propaganda, while also honestly addressing religion's role in ISIS's ideology.
But Obama, by refusing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as Islamist extremism, has tied his own hands; he cannot draw a distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism if he pretends the latter does not exist.
...
To be fair to the Obama administration, the idea that ISIS and al-Qaeda are totally divorced from "real" Islam is one that the media — including me — have furthered as well. Motivated by a well-intentioned desire to curb Islamophobia, perhaps as well as a desire to undermine these groups' ideology, this media narrative is nonetheless analytically incomplete. Worse, it is condescending, by suggesting that readers cannot be trusted with the truth.
There is a small but telling irony that captures the awkwardness of Obama's statements. He has frequently argued, as Westerners often do, that ISIS is "un-Islamic." He is, without meaning to, indulging one of the classic tropes of jihadism: takfir, which roughly translates to excommunication, and is the practice of declaring someone a false Muslim for adhering to an improper interpretation of the faith. That Obama has adopted takfiri thinking shows the contortions he must make to avoid admitting that ISIS may in fact be driven in part by religion.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I think Christians have a hard time criticizing Islam because of their own irrational beliefs. Also, something doesn't sit right with me listening to people talk about "true" Islam when the religion has such a history of evil in practice, although, to be fair, I suppose it's not much different from the awful shit Jews and Christians did hundred of years ago (and still today), it's just more recent and more pronounced in the case of Islam. I also think my perception of the actual lives of Muslims is absolutely skewed by the media as well, so it's difficult to craft a reasonable world view of the situation.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Vox did a piece on this, selected quotes:

I think Obama said it himself. Daesh view is a perversion of Islam, that is the link between its view and islam of majority of its followers. Now if you think its not a perversion of faith, Obama said you accept Daesh's lie that it's not a perversion and accept Daesh view as legitimate version of islam

 

[Naked Snake]

I think Obama said it himself. Daesh view is a perversion of Islam, that is the link between its view and islam of majority of its followers. Now if you think its not a perversion of faith, Obama said you accept Daesh's lie that it's not a perversion and accept Daesh view as legitimate version of islam

 

[clem84]

As you have said they are following what is written. If the christian followed what is written in the Bible is would be doing the same shit. But thanks to modern society most people have better moral standards than these old books... these people just need a little push to complete throw out it and be more happy.

This is often brought up to make the case that the Bible is no different than the Quran in that it contains violent passages. I don't buy it for one second. I know very little about both books so I don't know the real answer to this but the claim IMO is far fetched. Why is it that the vast majority of Christians are completely peaceful, and the ones who are radical spew hate speech but are rarely violent, and that thousands and thousands of Muslims across the world are willing to commit violent acts and that millions have a radical interpretation of Islam with lovely views such as "behead the ones who ridicule our prophet" and "someone who abandons Islam for another religion should die". I mean yeah, must be one big coincidence. The two books are identical... Right?

 

[TheJoRu]

I've stared at this GIF for several minutes now...WHEN DOES IT START AND WHEN DOES IT END!?

 

[Naked Snake]

I've stared at this GIF for several minutes now...WHEN DOES IT START AND WHEN DOES IT END!?

You've never seen a carefully looped GIF before?

I see a jerk while he's turning his head after the last line. Seems like that's the stitching point to me.

 

[gutter_trash]

Obama is good at dealing with domestic issues but a he is push over and a Chamberlain on forreforeign affairs.

Religion is partly part of terrorism.
Ethnic, tribal and polítical are other parts too but radical Islam wassupism cannot be discounted.

Saudi wassupism is a sect of sunni islam and a driving force of Islamic terrorism

 

[TheJoRu]

You've never seen a carefully looped GIF before?

I have. This one's real good, though. But yeah, I sort of see it now.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

As you have said they are following what is written. If the christian followed what is written in the Bible is would be doing the same shit. But thanks to modern society most people have better moral standards than these old books... these people just need a little push to complete throw out it and be more happy.

I know in the Bible there are hundreds of stories on war and bloodshed...but I can't fathom today's Christians (the non-extreme) literally taking what the Bible says and going through murderous acts like ISIS is with the Quran.

What bothers me about the Quran is that it says in black and white, kill the non believers. Why would a religion condone killing anything?

 

[Dugna]

This is often brought up to make the case that the Bible is no different than the Quran in that it contains violent passages. I don't buy it for one second. I know very little about both books so I don't know the real answer to this but the claim IMO is far fetched. Why is it that the vast majority of Christians are completely peaceful, and the ones who are radical spew hate speech but are rarely violent, and that thousands and thousands of Muslims across the world are willing to commit violent acts and that millions have a radical interpretation of Islam with lovely views such as "behead the ones who ridicule our prophet" and "someone who abandons Islam for another religion should die". I mean yeah, must be one big coincidence. The two books are identical... Right?

That or we as a society are allowed to actively tell extremists and hate spewing Christians to buzz off and what helps that is accepting that those hate spewing Christians are in fact CHRISTIANS.

You call ISIS for what they're, extremist Muslims, and for some reason even though we can do that with Christians and Christianity it's supposively taboo to say it about Muslims and Islam.

 

[Crisco]

People just don't get it, there is literally no upside in him fingering Islam as the catalyst for these groups. He said what he needed to say, namely that Muslims globally need to take a more active role in combatting the rhetoric of these groups. Anything more than that and we risk alienating the very allies we need to help find and kill these people. Which again, we've been doing very effectively over the past few months. This is global diplomacy folks, not high school debate team, Obama isn't talking to you.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's like most of GAF turns into complete fucking morons when it comes to religions role in creating terrorism.

It's like the fallacy of correlation equals causation just goes straight out the fucking window when there is a chance to put blame at the foot of religion.

Or understanding the strategy of political speeches and how pointing the finger at a religion of billions of people has no strategic value.

 

[Dyno]

I think Obama said it himself. Daesh view is a perversion of Islam, that is the link between its view and islam of majority of its followers. Now if you think its not a perversion of faith, Obama said you accept Daesh's lie that it's not a perversion and accept Daesh view as legitimate version of islam

President Obama is not a Muslim but you seem fine with him telling us what a Muslim is or is not. You've had problems with other people doing that in these threads.

Also, what else is a perversion of Islam? Are the Saudi Arabian Wahabis perverted in their religous views? I recall a great many mosques and schools in Pakistan that were built through their charities. Is there a list of Islamic perverts and non-perverts? Can it be done by country or tribe?

 

[Maninthemirror]

President Obama is not a Muslim but you seem fine with him telling us what a Muslim is or is not. You've had problems with other people doing that in these threads.

Also, what else is a perversion of Islam? Are the Saudi Arabian Wahabis perverted in their religous views? I recall a great many mosques and schools in Pakistan that were built through their charities. Is there a list of Islamic perverts and non-perverts? Can it be done by country or tribe?

I could say the same thing to all the non-Muslims telling me in this very thread that no Islam says this not that.

Daesh members are muslims, but their faith is perverted in comparison to other muslims

Anyone who believes in a view of Islam that something must be compulsory or else action will be taken against you is not following Islam in its intent. You can call it islam, but that would be Islam by Name only not by Action. La Ikrafa Fiddin. there is no compulsion in religion. Let people do as they please and judgment will come from God in the afterlife. Islam gives suggestions where moderation is key, hardship is discouraged and extremism and transgression is loathed by God. Any act where arms were taken is in defense of the people who are defending their religious existence. Any person, group, tribe, country and continent has defended itself with arms when they are under existential threat. Is Daesh defending Islam from elimination? No because Islam is not under attack from anyone physically nor is it under threat of physical elimination. Even if ALL but 1 muslim leaves the faith, even he won't have the authority to wage war if he is not under physical threat.

 

[y2dvd]

Where else is using Daesh adopted?

 

[Dyno]

I could say the same thing to all the non-Muslims telling me in this very thread that no Islam says this not that.

Daesh members are muslims, but their faith is perverted in comparison to other muslims

Anyone who believes in a view of Islam that something must be compulsory or else action will be taken against you is not following Islam in its intent. You can call it islam, but that would be Islam by Name only not by Action. La Ikrafa Fiddin. there is no compulsion in religion. Let people do as they please and judgment will come from God in the afterlife. Islam gives suggestions where moderation is key, hardship is discouraged and extremism and transgression is loathed by God. Any act where arms were taken is in defense of the people who are defending their religious existence. Any person, group, tribe, country and continent has defended itself with arms when they are under existential threat. Is Daesh defending Islam from elimination? No because Islam is not under attack from anyone physically nor is it under threat of physical elimination. Even if ALL but 1 muslim leaves the faith, even he won't have the authority to wage war if he is not under physical threat.

You really did evade the question and you didn't even address my question on Saudi Arabia. If you are going to simply bold one section of my post and ignore the rest then simply don't bother.

 

[Maninthemirror]

You really did evade the question and you didn't even address my question on Saudi Arabia. If you are going to simply bold one section of my post and ignore the rest then simply don't bother.

This includes individuals and clerics Saudi Arabia in the perversion of faith. did I not say anyone which includes all individual muslims? the first paragraph was the answer to the bold, the rest was the rest.

 

[Dyno]

This includes individuals and clerics Saudi Arabia in the perversion of faith. did I not say anyone which includes all individual muslims? the first paragraph was the answer to the bold, the rest was the rest.

Just stop. Your sentences are vague and incomplete. I simply want to know if there are any other groups or countries that are perverting Islam as ISIS is? Are the Saudi Arabian Wahabbis practicing 'true' Islam or are they perversions? A simple question that only needs a simply answer.

 

[beast786]

There is a finality to this discussion. But both side need to at least understand and understand others point of view, instead of just concentrating on being defensive in defending your point.

For people like me in this argument in GAF ( athiest , non Muslim etc) who are saying that religion and Quran itself is motivating power to these barbaric acts of Isis. We need to understand that when we discuss with a person of faith. It's faith and believe are not point of discussion. He/she truly believes that is the only explanation. If his expected explanation is different then he would be different to that particular version of faith. Hence it's meaningless to bring those quote of Quran or Hadith to Maninthemirror or other main stream respectcul vast majority non violent Muslim people because there faith directed meaning of those verse are obviously peaceful. And you me or anyone else won't ever be able to change that. So it's not like they are doing mental gymnastics. It truly is the only way of interpretation for them .And rest of us need to understand that.

On the otherside . For Maninthemirror or rusty nail or whoever is depending islam versus Isis . You already know , just the example of here in GAF where we have muslim who believe in Hadith and some who don't , we have shai and Maninthemirror himself is a minority sect Muslims . That beside your own faith and its interpretation ,. You have to admit that there are other tools like Hadith or different imam of school of thoughts. And when you use different tools to interpret than there is a possibility of different translations of the same verse . It's the reason we have so many different sects in Islam because at the end of the day we have varied tools given to interpret and not all follow or use those tools. Hence you have to concede, not you, but the possibility of having brutality and violence in Islam if some of these tools be used . Obviously, you don't believe in those tools (Hadith, interpretat)

 

[Enron]

I don't get why the administration tiptoes around this, and I also don't understand why people get angry about it.

You have guys blowing shit up, beheading people, tossing gays off of buildings, and committing hundereds of likewise atrocious acts daily and we care about whether its religious or whatever? It's still terrorism.

 

[spekkeh]

People just don't get it, there is literally no upside in him fingering Islam as the catalyst for these groups. He said what he needed to say, namely that Muslims globally need to take a more active role in combatting the rhetoric of these groups. Anything more than that and we risk alienating the very allies we need to help find and kill these people. Which again, we've been doing very effectively over the past few months. This is global diplomacy folks, not high school debate team, Obama isn't talking to you.

Oh I get it. He's wrong, but I get why he says it. Whether it works is something else. Anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy knows why he's wrong, but that excludes 99% of the population so he's probably fine. The problem is that he's kind of performing, at the least Ijtihad but at worst Takfir himself, now that's a problem.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Just stop. Your sentences are vague and incomplete. I simply want to know if there are any other groups or countries that are perverting Islam as ISIS is? Are the Saudi Arabian Wahabbis practicing 'true' Islam or are they perversions? A simple question that only needs a simply answer.

Interesting isn't it? We aren't calling out Saudi Arabia for perverting the faith, hell we deal with them on a normal basis. They are carrying out many heinous acts as well.

 

[SyenceLabb]

People just don't get it, there is literally no upside in him fingering Islam as the catalyst for these groups. He said what he needed to say, namely that Muslims globally need to take a more active role in combatting the rhetoric of these groups. Anything more than that and we risk alienating the very allies we need to help find and kill these people. Which again, we've been doing very effectively over the past few months. This is global diplomacy folks, not high school debate team, Obama isn't talking to you.

I understand what you mean. Obama is a politician, not a scholar, and politically this is the right thing to say. But he is also promoting the dangerous idea that religion is peaceful by definition.

Some folks believe religion itself is inherently good and shouldn't be criticized. Any argument based on this premise is a faulty one. Anyone saying they know the "true" interpretation of man made texts written close to 15 centuries ago, that plagiarized from texts even older, will have a serious problem supporting the claim. Abrahamic religious literalism is morally and ethically INCOMPATIBLE in the year 2015. Peaceful (moderate) Muslims are so inclined DESPITE their religion, not because of it.

The late Christopher Hitchens once said (paraphrasing)

- progress, innovation, discovery, enlightenment - all comes from the assumption that nothing is sacred. That everything can and must be questioned and challenged.

Religion can and must be questioned and challenged - Anything short of this is dangerous.

 

[Crisco]

No, this has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with the best way to combat violent terrorism rooted in religious fundamentalism. You renounce their legitimacy and implore mainstream religious leadership to do the same. IS particularly derives a lot of it's recruiting power from it's theological credibility, so if you take that away, you hurt them far more than actually acknowledging it.

Obama isn't trying to solve the "religion problem", he's trying to kill as many of these assholes as he possibly can without pissing off 2 billion more Muslims. This is the best way to go about doing that.

 

[spekkeh]

No, this has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with the best way to combat violent terrorism rooted in religious fundamentalism. You renounce their legitimacy and implore mainstream religious leadership to do the same. IS particularly derives a lot of it's recruiting power from it's theological credibility, so if you take that away, you hurt them far more than actually acknowledging it.

Obama isn't trying to solve the "religion problem", he's trying to kill as many of these assholes as he possibly can without pissing off 2 billion more Muslims. This is the best way to go about doing that.

Problem is Obama has no authority to perform Takfir. The Christian leader of the Great Satan going to tell who's been a good Muslim and who hasn't, may just as well antagonize the extremists further.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Just stop. Your sentences are vague and incomplete. I simply want to know if there are any other groups or countries that are perverting Islam as ISIS is? Are the Saudi Arabian Wahabbis practicing 'true' Islam or are they perversions? A simple question that only needs a simply answer.

you didnt get the answer so i am qouting it again..

Any group which falls into the qouted group is perverting the faith

Anyone who believes in a view of Islam that something must be compulsory or else action will be taken against you is not following Islam in its intent. You can call it islam, but that would be Islam by Name only not by Action. La Ikrafa Fiddin. there is no compulsion in religion. Let people do as they please and judgment will come from God in the afterlife. Islam gives suggestions where moderation is key, hardship is discouraged and extremism and transgression is loathed by God. Any act where arms were taken is in defense of the people who are defending their religious existence. Any person, group, tribe, country and continent has defended itself with arms when they are under existential threat. Is Daesh defending Islam from elimination? No because Islam is not under attack from anyone physically nor is it under threat of physical elimination. Even if ALL but 1 muslim leaves the faith, even he won't have the authority to wage war if he is not under physical threat.

Problem is Obama has no authority to perform Takfir. The Christian leader of the Great Satan going to tell who's been a good Muslim and who hasn't, may just as well antagonize the extremists further.

when the majority muslims deem the Daesh muslims unislamic in their actions, if the retort is welll you have no authority to say this because they say its not true you give credibility to Daesh and undermine the message of moderates who want Daesh like groups credibility removed from existence. If an idea which is harmful is conflicting with an idea which is not harmful,when the harmful idea needs to be removed you try to remove its credibility. the only plausible reason one would raise the credibility of a harmful idea that it does not like is for the removal of both the harmful and non-harmful idea out of existence

 

[Crisco]

Problem is Obama has no authority to perform Takfir. The Christian leader of the Great Satan going to tell who's been a good Muslim and who hasn't, may just as well antagonize the extremists further.

Antagonize the extremists? You do realize we're sending daily truckloads of these people to their prophet, right? Literally truckloads,

Antagonizing them isn't of concern to him, not antagonizing over a quarter of the world's population is.

 

[ponpo]

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/568791203841495040

CNN clip

Does Pres. Obama need to use the term 'Islamic extremism'

Anderson discusses the issue with Fareed Zakaria and Maajid Nawaz.

 

[MisterFalcon]

What terrible thing exactly is going to happen when Obama says that ISIS is an extremist muslim group ? Are there that many people who were waiting for an unbeliever from America to confirm ISIS is islamic before joining them ?