What ISIS Really Wants (The Atlantic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
My logic was more that by recognizing and openly acknowledging the dodgy parts, then Muslim societies can collectively move towards a more solidified and unified version of their faith that would end up eliminating the rogue elements. Not just ISIS rogue elements or terrorists in general, but general ignorance and bigotry that is fueled across mosques across the Muslim world.
 
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

1. I do.
2. Muhammed didn't live in the Bronze Age
3. These ISIS assholes aren't following the Prophet's traditions.

Why are both if you continuing to ignore the slavery and crucifixion portions of my posts? It was a central part of the article...
 
My logic was more that by recognizing and openly acknowledging the dodgy parts, then Muslim societies can collectively move towards a more solidified and unified version of their faith that would end up eliminating the rogue elements. Not just ISIS rogue elements or terrorists in general, but general ignorance and bigotry that is fueled across mosques across the Muslim world.

Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel types spouting bullshit like "THE DODGY PARTS ARE TRUE ISLAM" don't help.

We can have a conversation about 'the dodgy parts' and it would be a good conversation to have. But it makes it impossible to do when some smug asshole is sitting in the background claiming that Muslims who call ISIS types Unislamic have a "cotton candy view" of Islam. Bullshit.
 
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.


Well, if are allowed to admit there are problems, then it is easier for rational people to temper some of the more radical ideas in the quran. If we can say, "well, I do not think the part about killing infidels is needed," then that is a huge step.

Most of these people are killing on those verses alone. I would imagine some are not allowed to question or disregard the doctrine or words in some of these areas. Since they cannot admit or question, they cycle continues.

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.

This shows an interesting psychology about yourself and belief. I am not sure how to pin it, but I see contempt, denial and insecurity at questioning anything.
 
Why are both if you continuing to ignore the slavery and crucifixion portions of my posts? It was a central part of the article...

It's got nothing to do with my point that Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel doesn't get to decide who has a 'cotton candy' view of Islam and who doesn't. Do you think I have a 'cotton candy' view of Islam?

tfur said:
Well, if are allowed to admit there are problems, then it is easier for rational people to temper some of the more radical ideas in the quran. If we can say, "well, I do not think the part about killing infidels is needed," then that is a huge step.
It's constantly surprising to me that people fail to recognize that when Muslims call ISIS actions Unislamic... that's EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Saying that the killing infidels part has nothing to do with 'True Islam'.
 
Why are both if you continuing to ignore the slavery and crucifixion portions of my posts? It was a central part of the article...

easy

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=115028734&postcount=575
Allegation: Islam endorses Slavery

'And what should make thee know what the steep ascent is? It is the freeing of a slave (Quran 90:11-13)
Quran sets the precedence. The steep ascent being ascending of spiritual nature of a muslim. It is a clear incentive given by God in Islam to Muslims that one way to acheive a steep ascent to God is by freeing of a slave.

People say why didn't Quran outright say Slavery is forbidden from this day.

The line of thinking is a result of ignorance as you will see that is not what the ultimate goal of Islam was and is.

Islam employed effective steps in removing slavery rather than making one declaration abolishing it effective immediately. Islam took a similar approach to how it removed racism and prejudice by letting the inner conviction of muslims themselves realizing that they are ultimately a sin.

Slavery was rampant in pre Islamic arabia. So much so that slaves were bought and sold without any regard of family and killed off without consequences. The first step Islam provided was to give all humans the sense of equality slave or no slave. This included the fact that no free man was to be enslaved and sold off, thus cutting off the major source of expansion of slavery and essentially plateuing the slave trade before diminishing it. the second step through equality was to tell the owners of current slaves to treat them as equals which if you look at it, which slave master would treat their slave as equals as themselves, but they were told to do so and they did. As a result the built up compassion, many muslims freed their own slaves thus shrinking the slave population even further.

The further steps was Quran mentioning that one way to remove sins which each and every muslim strived to do was to free a slave which gave muslims a realization that to expunge their sin, they could simply free their slave. If a muslim ever commited involuntary man slaughter, one 'punishment' for them was to free a slave as to many still, they were essential to their economic conditions. A husband had to free a slave woman before marrying them. Another 'punishment' Islam prescribed that if a muslim man insulted his wife physically or verbally, he had to free a slave.

Now we see that Islam trended in the position that if you commit a sin, you had to free a slave as atonement. this made muslims realise that a blind freedom of slave would bring them atonement which led to muslims buying slaves and freeing them bringing them a cleansing of their sins.

There is a tradition that the Holy Prophet (saw) said to have freed mass amount slaves every time the sun or moon eclipsed not due to sin or punishment but because it was a sign of God so the thoughts tended to free society of sins by freeing of slaves. When the Holy Prophet (saw) married his first wife, she set her property to him including her slaves, his first act was free all her slaves.

Hadith of the Holy Prophet as examples;

'What is the best kind of manumission of slaves? He replied 'the manumission of the most expensive slave and the most beloved by his master'
'He who sets free a muslim slave, Allah will deliver from the fire the hell every limb of his body in return for every limb of the slave's body, even his private parts'
Even in his farewell addressed he specifically mentioned the remaining slaves and their treatments.

Hadith:

'Allah says "I will be against 3 person on the day of resurrection, 1. one who makes a covenant in my names but proves trecherous 2. one who sells a free person as a slave and eats the price 3. one who employs a laborer and gets full work done by him but does not pay him his full wages'
Caliph of Islam Umar narrates: ' The Prophet(saw) forbade selling of slaves or giving it as a present'

Next Quran required muslims to free slaves who earned thier freedom

Quran 24:33

'such as desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them if you know any good in them; and give them out of the wealth of ALLAH which HE has bestowed upon you.'
In essence the goal was not really to end slavery suddenly, the goal was to let society slowly ween away from slavery without impacting the society as a whole. The end result desired was that the prejudice and racism would be nowhere near close to the hearts of muslims and they accept everyone as their equals. If Islam had forced removed slavery, many would have freed slaves but very few would have the freed slaves as brethern. by enforcing brotherhood and equality first and letting muslims free slaves with more and more incentives, the prejudice and racism was removed first which let to the freed slaves treated as equals unequivically.

Another Hadith:

' Your servants and slaves are your brothers and your stewards, Allah has placed them under your hands; whoso then has a brother under his hands, let him feed him out of what he feeds himself, and let him clothe out of what he clothes himself and compel them not to do work which will overpower them, and if ye do compel them (to any such overpowering work) then assist them in doing the same work with them.'

Is this what we call slavery, eat what you eat, wear what you wear. Imagine a CEO asking his employee to live like a CEO. Islam prescribes not a slave master relationship but employer employee relationship with the slaves of then getting better treatment than many employees here in the west in modern day and age.

Another hadith:

Abu Masud Al Badri narrates: 'I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me. 'Understand Abu Masud' but I did not recognize the voice due to intense anger. Abu Masud says 'He came near me and I realized it was the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he was saying 'Bear in mind, Abu Masud, bear in mind Abu Masud!' Abu Masud says 'I threw my whip from my hand. Thereupon the Holy Prophet (saw) said again 'Bear in Mind, Abu Masud, verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave,' Abu Masud finally says 'I will never beat by servant in the future'

Another Hadith:

'Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release the ones in captivity (by paying his ransom'

Thus muslims were told to use their own funds to free the enslaved.

As historian Lerone Bennet Jr says, Islam was far from racial and many slaves in Islam became army generals and administrators and poets of highest statures.

Usama bin Zaid and Zaid bin Harr were slaves who became the high ranking generals in muslim armies. former slaves Ata bin Abi Rabah and Ibn e Sireen became renouned imam of Hadith and Jurisprudence. former slaves Ibne Sireen became the premier authority in dream interpretation in muslim world. Mujahid bin Jubair and Musa bin Akba became one of the most famous islamic scholars and historians.

Under Islam acts of charity like Zakat and charity in general were used as emancipation for freeing of slaves.

Even though Slavery came back a few hundred years after Muhammad (saw) in some form it is at a downward trend again with focus back on relearning what Islam taught about slavery itself.

also there is no punishment which prescribes crucifixion unless you are sourcing it off bad hadith
 
It's got nothing to do with my point that Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel doesn't get to decide who has a 'cotton candy' view of Islam and who doesn't. Do you think I have a 'cotton candy' view of Islam?

You don't seem to be able to adress the main arguments he is making, so I would lump you in with people who Keep blinders on regarding the disguting parts of the Koran and the prophets life.
 
so you admit it. no need discussing with you if your aim is to mislead people as you admit is a good idea

I actually don't care as long as people follow the Declaration of Human Rights. That's all the guidance I need. The religious portion is your own business, I have no interest in disabusing anyone really, as long as they're not hurting anyone, or teaching hateful or incorrect things (i.e. evolution 'debate').

It's when the religious ideas start to screw around with laws and education, and of course harassment and killing, is where I have a problem.

you've just quoted a bunch of hadiths to make your point about slavery up there, but on the previous page:
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

you have to admit, it's somewhat confusing. and I don't like the idea of Special Holy Men telling me how to read something, the Catholics are still dealing with that.
 
You don't seem to be able to adress the main arguments he is making
So you are saying that I have a 'cotton candy' view of Islam? I want to be very clear on this because then we can talk about this irrational bullshit claim of yours.
 
You don't seem to be able to adress the main arguments he is making, so I would lump you in with people who Keep blinders on regarding the disguting parts of the Koran and the prophets life.

Kurdel, one question. Azih clearly believes that he or she has the correct scriptural interpretation of the Qu'ran. ISIS clearly believe that they have the correct scriptural interpretation of the Qu'ran. These interpretations are not the same. Why have some Muslims picked one interpretation, and ISIS the other?
 
You don't seem to be able to adress the main arguments he is making, so I would lump you in with people who Keep blinders on regarding the disguting parts of the Koran and the prophets life.

where are you basing The Prophets life on? revisionist orientalist history? and what Disgusting parts of the Quran? the one people have been educated about and people still have the same circular argument? there is no use educating if you are not willing to learn
 
You don't seem to be able to adress the main arguments he is making, so I would lump you in with people who Keep blinders on regarding the disguting parts of the Koran and the prophets life.
Please tell us the argument the Islamic Pope Sheikh Bernard Haykal is making?
 
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?

Hmmmm ... the prophet Mohammed was a warleader, he raided caravans, he had his critics killed, he had all the members of a Jewish tribe beheaded and enslaved their women, he had slaves, he had multiple wives.

It's not like Isis are following in the footsteps of a hippie pacifist. ISIS members are literalists, they're trying to follow the koran and sharia law as closely as is possible. Their interpretation of islam makes them commit horrible crimes against humanity, and it can all be sourced back to interpretations of the koran and hadith that are preached all over the world by Salafist and Wahhabist preachers. That particular interpretation of the islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, the birth place of the islam, the place of pilgrimage for millions of muslims.
 
Hmmmm ... the prophet Mohammed was a warleader, he raided caravans, he had his critics killed, he had all the members of a Jewish tribe beheaded and enslaved their women, he had slaves, he had multiple wives.

It's not like Isis are following in the footsteps of a hippie pacifist. ISIS members are literalists, they're trying to follow the koran and sharia law as closely as is possible. Their interpretation of islam makes them commit horrible crimes against humanity, and it can all be sourced back to interpretations of the koran and hadith that are preached all over the world by Salafist and Wahhabist preachers. That particular interpretation of the islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, the birth place of the islam, the place of pilgrimage for millions of muslims.


wikination. the source of all beliefs. tragic.

read up on actual Islamic history based on people who were there during the time if you want to get facts rather than use wiki to increase your knowledge thinking he was a warlord or a murderer or a stealer or an enslaver
 
Why are both if you continuing to ignore the slavery and crucifixion portions of my posts? It was a central part of the article...

See the thing about your earlier post was that you said ISIS wanted to bring back the "lifestyle" of the prohpet muhammed.

that was not his WHOLE life.
 
He who sets free a muslim slave, Allah will deliver from the fire the hell every limb of his body in return for every limb of the slave's body, even his private parts

So if I just free one of each appendage from different people, I'm good to go to heaven?
 
It's constantly surprising to me that people fail to recognize that when Muslims call ISIS actions Unislamic... that's EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Saying that the killing infidels part has nothing to do with 'True Islam'.


Well, let be clear. It does have something to do with Islam, since it is written that followers should kill infidels.

I think this is where is problem lies. Islam needs a way to carve those idea out of the doctrine. I think a lot of good would happen if there was a way for the doctrine to reason around the killing of infidels. Why is there no hadith doing such a thing? Maybe there is one?

It seems these groups are using the authority of the killing verses, to fuel all of their killing. That authority needs to be taken away.
 
So if I just free one of each appendage from different people, I'm good to go to heaven?

and then there are people who try to downplay verses which tell muslims to remove slavery by making a joke out of it., putting it under the rug essentially.

all jokes aside. its a metaphor for freeing a slave. its not really a funny thing
 
Hmmmm ... the prophet Mohammed was a warleader, he raided caravans, he had his critics killed, he had all the members of a Jewish tribe beheaded and enslaved their women, he had slaves, he had multiple wives.

It's not like Isis are following in the footsteps of a hippie pacifist. ISIS members are literalists, they're trying to follow the koran and sharia law as closely as is possible. Their interpretation of islam makes them commit horrible crimes against humanity, and it can all be sourced back to interpretations of the koran and hadith that are preached all over the world by Salafist and Wahhabist preachers. That particular interpretation of the islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, the birth place of the islam, the place of pilgrimage for millions of muslims.
Barring the obviously wrong wikiislam link, did you actually read the articles yourself other than the headline? I mean in your very first link, it says Muhammad signed the Constitution of Medina with the tribes living there, and the Constitution postulated that if Medina is attacked, all tribes must set aside differences and defend Medina. Whats so crazy about that?
 
and then there are people who try to downplay verses which tell muslims to remove slavery by making a joke out of it., putting it under the rug essentially.

all jokes aside. its a metaphor for freeing a slave. its not really a funny thing
I'm just poking fun at the wording :P
 
Barring the obviously wrong wikiislam link, did you actually read the articles yourself other than the headline? I mean in your very first link, it says Muhammad signed the Constitution of Medina with the tribes living there, and the Constitution postulated that if Medina is attacked, all tribes must set aside differences and defend Medina. Whats so crazy about that?

you expect people to read a whole article when they select verses from the entire chapter of a Quran to make their point? really?

I'm just poking fun at the wording :P

im glad you agree Islam doesnt endorse slavery
 
So you are saying that I have a 'cotton candy' view of Islam? I want to be very clear on this because then we can talk about this irrational bullshit claim of yours.

You throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying they aren't muslims, yet they aim to live life and the prophet did. If you can't reconcile that they are maybe reading your book and following it closer to the letter than you are, then yes, you have rose tinted glasses.

Kurdel, one question. Azih clearly believes that he or she has the correct scriptural interpretation of the Qu'ran. ISIS clearly believe that they have the correct scriptural interpretation of the Qu'ran. These interpretations are not the same. Why have some Muslims picked one interpretation, and ISIS the other?

As I said, to me, revealed holy book act as a warrant for anyone wanting to act out it's worst parts. It doesn't make them less muslim, or Azih more muslim for ignoring them and conforming with the majority.

where are you basing The Prophets life on? revisionist orientalist history?

No, from what I have read. You post a out slavery shows how generous muslims were when they invaded and converted then freed slaves. What happens if they don't convert, and keep their pagan religion, like ISIS was arguing about the Yazidis?

Please tell us the argument the Islamic Pope Sheikh Bernard Haykal is making?

Didn't you read the article in the OP?
 
You throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying they aren't muslims, yet they aim to live life and the prophet did. If you can't reconcile that they are maybe reading your book and following it closer to the letter than you are, then yes, you have rose tinted glasses.



As I said, to me, revealed holy book act as a warrant for anyone wanting to act out it's worst parts. It doesn't make them less muslim, or Azih more muslim for ignoring them and conforming with the majority.



No, from what I have read. You post a out slavery shows how generous muslims were when they invaded and converted then freed slaves. What happens if they don't convert, and keep their pagan religion, like ISIS was arguing about the Yazidis?



Didn't you read the article in the OP?

whats your source about Holy Prophets life? would really like to know. please dont say wikiislam or wikipedia lol
 
As I said, to me, revealed holy book act as a warrant for anyone wanting to act out it's worst parts. It doesn't make them less muslim, or Azih more muslim for ignoring them and conforming with the majority.

No, you've not answered my question. I don't care what is the "true" version of Islam. There is almost certainly no true version. What I'm concerned with is why ISIS have picked their particular interpretation. Any answers?
 
you expect people to read a whole article when they select verses from the entire chapter of a Quran to make their point? really?

what do you think of this part?

(honestly i hope I'm not totally offending you, you're a good sport. I am genuinely curious about your perspective on this, even if I attack your arguments.)

from the article:

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

Like, it does not sound like some flippant or hasty reading of the books to me. These guys are absolutely immersed in their faith. You seem to want to dismiss it as you did earlier, "clerics who skipped some passages' or what have you. That doesn't strike me as the case here. So I can't understand how you can be so absolutely certain that you are right and they are all wrong.

Your sect in particular, is not not viewed as a bit of an outsider perspective of the faith?

and don't say 'go read 10 000 pages on history' please I barely have enough GAF time as it is
 
3. These ISIS assholes aren't following the Prophet's traditions.

Yes they are. Mo hacked and slashed his way across the Middle East, bringing Islam to each conquered village, town and city his violent and rampaging army steamrolled through. Slavery and mass execution were very much the Islamists stock in trade. Islamic State (and they're very much Islamic) are using the very same tactics as their medieval predecessors.
 
No, you've not answered my question. I don't care what is the "true" version of Islam. There is almost certainly no true version. What I'm concerned with is why ISIS have picked their particular interpretation. Any answers?

I think the radicalisation and their poor living standards pushed them to a breaking point where they think the modern world is fucked up and they want to go back to a simpler time, where muslims were a stable and dominant force in the region.

Why they choose to promote certain verses or aspects of the prophets life, that I can't say.
 
Well, let be clear. It does have something to do with Islam, since it is written that followers should kill infidels.
Good Lord, we've got a whole forum full of people fully on side with Daesh/ISIS when they say they're the true muslims while peaceful muslims "aren't really muslim".

So the bastards who lined up 21 people and killed them are the true muslims while I'm not. Got it.
 
I don't have one single source that I will copy paste everytime I need to justify something. My understanding comes from everything I have read, including this forum.

you don;t have any source realistically aside from blogs etc. please educate yourself on the life of the Holy Prophet

Read the life of the holy Prophet by martin lings: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594771537/?tag=neogaf0e-20

or by Karen Armstrong: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DTTEDLQ/?tag=neogaf0e-20

or a free eBook: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf


what do you think of this part?

(honestly i hope I'm not totally offending you, you're a good sport. I am genuinely curious about your perspective on this, even if I attack your arguments.)

from the article:



Like, it does not sound like some flippant or hasty reading of the books to me. These guys are absolutely immersed in their faith. You seem to want to dismiss it as you did earlier, "clerics who skipped some passages' or what have you. That doesn't strike me as the case here. So I can't understand how you can be so absolutely certain that you are right and they are all wrong.

Your sect in particular, is not not viewed as a bit of an outsider perspective of the faith?

and don't say 'go read 10 000 pages on history' please I barely have enough GAF time as it is

the view of my sect has nothing to do with the fact that the Holy Prophet (saw) was a peaceful Prophet of God and final lawbearer of God as per Islam
 
I think the radicalisation and their poor living standards pushed them to a breaking point where they think the modern world is fucked up and they want to go back to a simpler time, where muslims were a stable and dominant force in the region.

Why they choose to promote certain verses or aspects of the prophets life, that I can't say.

So why do you think the radicalisation has occurred? You mention poor living standards - is there anything else?
 
you don;t have any source realistically aside from blogs etc. please educate yourself on the life of the Holy Prophet

Read the life of the holy Prophet by martin lings: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594771537/?tag=neogaf0e-20

or by Karen Armstrong: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DTTEDLQ/?tag=neogaf0e-20

or a free eBook: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf

If I may inquire.

While you don't have a single source, what are your top sources?

I find it funny that this has become about me, and my lack of sources, while conveniently faling to adress the points made on the article this thread is about.
 
Good Lord, we've got a whole forum full of people fully on side with Daesh/ISIS when they say they're the true muslims while peaceful muslims "aren't really muslim".

So the bastards who lined up 21 people and killed them are the true muslims while I'm not. Got it.

Who are you quoting?

you don;t have any source realistically aside from blogs etc. please educate yourself on the life of the Holy Prophet

So maybe you can answer his reply to your slavery question now of what happens when people don't concert.
 
I find it funny that this has become about me, and my lack of sources, while conveniently faling to adress the points made on the article this thread is about.

the main point is . most non-muslims and Muslims view ISIS as unislamic in their actions and only islamic in their name. a few non-Muslims and a few Muslims view ISIS as Islamic in their actions and their name.
 
So why do you think the radicalisation has occurred? You mention poor living standards - is there anything else?

I don't see how this is pertinent to the article or the subject at hand, which is the people in denial that these people can have a legitimate interpretation or Islam.
 
I find it funny that this has become about me, and my lack of sources, while conveniently faling to adress the points made on the article this thread is about.

I'm sorry man, I'm not attacking you.

I respect your opinion, I'm just curios.

I suppose I only have my upbringing and teachings. I would like to educate myself more
 
Who are you quoting?
Princeton Scholar Bernard Haykel in the article who said that Muslims who call Daesh/ISIS/Al-Qaea Unislamic have "a cotton-candy view of their own religion” and the people in this very thread who are agreeing with him or not disagreeing with him when I ask about it point-blank.
 
I don't see how this is pertinent to the article or the subject at hand, which is the people in denial that these people can have a legitimate interpretation or Islam.

It's very pertinent. If we knew what drove the members of ISIS to pick the particular interpretation of the faith they have, we might understand better what they want. It's also very pertinent to the legitimacy of their interpretation. Their motive might impact the legitimacy of their decision. Do you have an answer?
 
Good Lord, we've got a whole forum full of people fully on side with Daesh/ISIS when they say they're the true muslims while peaceful muslims "aren't really muslim".

So the bastards who lined up 21 people and killed them are the true muslims while I'm not. Got it.

I not even sure the notion of "true" even means anything if we ignore the discussion.

What I wrote was true about the texts, and you ignored the rest of my post which addressed those texts. I also asked a question, which I guess you cannot answer.

I think this is where is problem lies. Islam needs a way to carve those idea out of the doctrine. I think a lot of good would happen if there was a way for the doctrine to reason around the killing of infidels. Why is there no hadith doing such a thing? Maybe there is one?

It seems these groups are using the authority of the killing verses, to fuel all of their killing. That authority needs to be taken away.
 
I'm sorry man, I'm not attacking you.

I respect your opinion, I'm just curios.

I suppose I only have my upbringing and teachings. I would like to educate myself more

Then let's say this article is my only source of knowledge of the prophets life. I know nothing else than what is written in this article.

I would like to esucate myself more, instead of dealing with people who are just indignant at the mention that ISIS might be a legit sect of Islam.

It's very pertinent. If we knew what drove the members of ISIS to pick the particular interpretation of the faith they have, we might understand better what they want. It's also very pertinent to the legitimacy of their interpretation. Their motive might impact the legitimacy of their decision. Do you have an answer?

Unless they are using the faith as a social/political manipulation tool (and I don't think they aren't), I don't see why motivation would impact legiticamy. They are hardliners, who want to emulate a long gone lifestyle, and won't stop until they get what they want or are stopped.
 
You know, through all the debating about the "true tradition" of Mohammed and Islam, it's amazing to me that, ultimately, all of this was sparked out of the ignorance and delusion of early desert dwellers. They came up with some whacky shit to explain the world and THOUSANDS of years later, modern humans, with all the access to information and all the advancements that we've made, are still sitting here talking about, "No, Mohammed/Jesus wasn't like that", and, God/Allah would not agree with that."

Meanwhile you have guys running around the Middle East chopping off heads screaming, "God says you're not allowed to play musical instruments!" and guys in Africa sentencing people to death screaming, "God says you can't get in bed with another man!"

And moderates are like, "I don't think God is against playing instruments or homosexuality, but yes I do believe that he snapped his fingers and made everything appear." This is fucking CRAZY. Moderate or extreme, at its core, it's all crazy.
 
Good Lord, we've got a whole forum full of people fully on side with Daesh/ISIS when they say they're the true muslims while peaceful muslims "aren't really muslim".

So the bastards who lined up 21 people and killed them are the true muslims while I'm not. Got it.

Nowhere in that article nor in this thread have people been saying ISIS = true Islam as you keep spouting. You are coming up with that conclusion. Define 'interpretation' and tell me why that can go wrong.
 
Then let's say this article is my only source of knowledge of the prophets life. I know nothing else than what is written in this article.

I would like to esucate myself more, instead of dealing with people who are just indignant at the mention that ISIS might be a legit sect of Islam.

Understandable, and I honestly think a lot of us in the muslim community (myself included) have developed a knee jerk reaction the moment any sort of discussion of ISIS and its religious heritage are brought up...
 
Unless they are using the faith as a social/political manipulation tool (and I don't think they aren't), I don't see why motivation would impact legiticamy. They are hardliners, who want to emulate a long gone lifestyle, and won't stop until they get what they want or are stopped.

So, why don't you think they are? They do seem to do a lot of explicitly social and political actions. You've also ignored the first part of my response, about finding out what they want. I'd also question that they want to emulate a long gone lifestyle. Who exactly are they trying to emulate? And, more importantly, why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom