Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

In the article a Princeton scholar speaks on Islam, and a bunch of people are up in arms saying "who's he to speak on Islam"?

Huh? He can speak about Islam all he wants. Calling me someone who believe in a 'cotton candy' version of Islam while implying ISIS are real Muslims is illogical and dangerous though and there's no reasonable comparison to Reza Aslan writing a book about the historical Jesus.

Are you twisting my words or something?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

You're conflating "Islam" and "ISIS' version of Islam" again. Given the tradition of the Middle East, Islam as a general set of creeds, some of which have very little in common, is likely to influence them, yes. ISIS version of Islam, as a very specific creed, that has very little established history in the region and draws upon proselytization firmly rooted in the social media era, was not at all likely to influence them. Jump back in time to about 1965 and the West was worried about pan-Arabism and the emergence of an Arab nation-state aligned with the Soviet Union. They positively leapt at encouraging religious conservatives as a means of restraining secular rationalists. The arc from 1965 to now is certainly not a likely one.



This supposes that people pick interpretations at random. People don't. People have reasons for picking particular interpretations. There are reasons which motivate them to pick bad ones. These are the systemic problems that allow ISIS to exist.



It makes specific versions of American exceptionalism open to particular forms of criticism, yes. It would be stupid to say that because some people used American exceptionalism to excuse genocide that if we just got rid of the concept of American exceptionalism, people wouldn't have committed the genocide. They wouldn't. People are great at coming up with ideologies that justify them in pursuing ends they wanted regardless - see Britain's white man's burden, Mao's revolutionary warfare, etc. Without American exceptionalism, some other apparent excuse to wipe out the native Americans would have occurred simply because there were people in the United States who didn't particularly care about the welfare of native Americans, wanted land because it was immensably profitable in the railway and farm era, but felt some cognitive dissonance at the fact they were killing people and therefore came up with some ideology as to why it was therefore acceptable to do so.

You are arguing against a fuckton of sociology fyi. To deny that Islam could have any impact on anything is absurd.

I'm fucking studying neo-classical economics and even I think you're assuming way too much individual determinism and freedom from environmental impact.

Modern liberals are weird in being able to both accept that people like Elliot Rodgers emerge from cultural influence while seeming to deny even the possibility of cultural, non-economic influence with regards to ISIS. I know a lot of it is so not to give even an inch to hate groups like The Golden Dawn, but it's still weird.

 

[y2dvd]

Then you agree with me that it's nonsense for Princeton Scholar Bernard Haykel or Sam Harris or whoever else to try and arbitrate who's a 'True Muslim' or who's a 'Cotton Candy Muslim' then? That's where I jumped into this whole thing so I'm glad that we can agree on that point at least...

What do you think Haykel meant by that term - Cotton Candy? Do you not agree religious people already do this? I'll agree it's a slight jab of a term, but people do cherry pick the good and want to leave the bad. Thing is when every word in a holy scripture is "good" for some people, there is no "bad". I believe the main point of the article is to acknowledge that and go from there.

Princeton Scholar Bernard Haykel.. Sam Harris has plenty of times in the past. A lot of people in this thread who are quoting bits and bobs from the Quran that seem at first glance to support ISIS types and not peaceful types.

You are and have been grossly misinterpreting our rationalizing ISIS as being ISIS supporters. It's unbelievable. Imagine someone going, "He is explaining how that killer became a murderer, therefore he supports murder himself." That is essentially what you are doing. It's absurd.

Weird that's my entire point and I"m going off on the people who have come down on the fence that the ISIS types are definitely more true and peaceful ones are definitely not like Princeton Scholar Bernard Haykel... Sam Harris and others.

Never did this. Where did I do this? Who are you talking to?

'True' is the most misconstrued use of the term when it comes to religion. There's factual truth, then there's opinionated "truth" which isn't what it means at all. What makes ISIS's opinion any less valid than yours when none of it is based on facts?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You are arguing against a fuckton of sociology fyi. To deny that Islam could have any impact on anything is absurd.

I'm fucking studying neo-classical economics and even I think you're assuming way too much individual determinism and freedom from environmental impact.

I hope that your study of neo-classical economics doesn't demand too much of your reading skills, because they don't appear to be up to much.

You're conflating "Islam" and "ISIS' version of Islam" again. Given the tradition of the Middle East, Islam as a general set of creeds, some of which have very little in common, is likely to influence them, yes.

You might want to read some of the other parts, they contain material which, strangely, is also relevant.

 

[Interceptor]

As I said. I have never seen any anti Daesh person ever consider their view as having any weight as you have repeatedly. I wouldn't be surprised if you view Daesh view as the islam you think is actual islam considring you consistently downplay peaceful interpretations as swept under the rug and Daesh view as having a lot of weight in their arguments. It's frankly disturbing

There is no daesh. There is just the Islamic state. It´s as islamic as it can get. It´s the closest thing we got to uncle Mo since the fall of the last caliphate.

 

[Azih]

What do you think Haykel meant by that term - Cotton Candy?

Not the real thing

Do you not agree religious people already do this?

Depends on the religious person.

You are and have been grossly misinterpreting our rationalizing ISIS as being ISIS supporters.

What? I never said that. I was responding to RoadHazard and said that there are plenty of people out there and in this thread who are more than happy to make the argument that peaceful Muslims aren't really Muslims while ISIS types are. Edit: For example Interceptor in the post RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE is doing exactly that.

What makes ISIS's opinion any less valid than yours when none of it is based on facts?

1. If Islam is the one true Faith than God decides

2. If Islam isn't the one true Faith than it's absurd for Haykel, Harris, and plenty of people in this thread to make the argument that peaceful Muslims aren't really Muslims while ISIS types are like Harris, Haykel and, just now, Interceptor with his Uncle Mo bullshit.

 

[tfur]

lets see chapter 9 shall we



You can see from this sequence that this killing was only in that time as a part of defense against the aggressors who were non-Muslims and constantly attacking Muslims and their allies. Muslims were specifically asked to have a treaty with those disbelievers of Islam who were NOT hostile against Muslims.

This is proven once again with the other verse you qouted

answered here:

http://www.trueislamispeace.com/answeringcritics/



plus these sequence of versus are only applicable against those who attack your faith specifically because of faith, not for political reasons or any other reasons, for faith alone. and as today islam cannot be eliminated and there is no army attacking Islam specifically (except Daesh which is technically attacking islam) these verses are not even applicable in this day and age. if however a big army sought out the destruction of religion in the name of religion, then this would apply

I see this:

[9:5] And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.

and this

2 : 191 Abdul Daryabadi : And slay them wheresoever ye come upon them, and drive them out whence they drove you out; and temptation is more grievous than slaughter. And fight them not near the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein, but if they get ready to fight you there, then slay them. That is the meed of the infidels.

Dr. Mohsin : And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah[] is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah),[] unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Mufti Taqi Usmani : Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers.

Pickthal : And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Yusuf Ali : And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Then I see your interpretation and others that seems to allow it or condone as something only of the past (what is the date this only pertains to, and where is it in the quran?). Is there a hadith that specifically puts this only in the past?

The "answered here" part for 2:191:

None of that added portion is actually in the quran. Then you follow that by saying its "only applicable against those who attack your faith specifically because of faith."

Without your added commentary, the direct words still are lived and being used today as an excuse the groups use. It is quite evidently applicable today.

Further, even if you past date all of this, the philosophy is not congruent with supposed prophets before.

Like I said before:

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...

Edit:
I am stepping away from my computer until tomorrow.
I will only be able to lightly surf with a tablet, so I will have to drop until then.

 

[Stereogatari]

There is no daesh. There is just the Islamic state. It´s as islamic as it can get. It´s the closest thing we got to uncle Mo since the fall of the last caliphate.

Fuck you. The Turkish Caliphate was more comparable to European Monarchies and Japan than it was to ISIS. By saying such a comment you've shown how ignorant you are.

And let me be clear, I'm an Atheist and hate organised religion. But I don't peddle falsehoods in my arguments.

 

[Interceptor]

Not the real thing Depends on the religious person.

What? I never said that. I was responding to RoadHazard and said that there are plenty of people out there and in this thread who are more than happy to make the argument that peaceful Muslims aren't really Muslims while ISIS types are. Edit: For example Interceptor in the post RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE is doing exactly that.



1. If Islam is the one true Faith than God decides

2. If Islam isn't the one true Faith than it's absurd for Haykel, Harris, and plenty of people in this thread to make the argument that peaceful Muslims aren't really Muslims while ISIS types are like Harris, Haykel and, just now, Interceptor with his Uncle Mo bullshit.

Mohammed did the exact same things as the IS does today.
Why pray to the one and call the others unislamic?
Thats the whole problem with this debate and what the article in the OP is about.
You can´t build a cult based around a violent warlord, praise him as the ideal role model for all of mankind
and then pretend the Islamic state, which got all his ideas from the exact same person, has nothing to do with said person.

Thats hilarious, laughable, childish and even more important, unproductive.
It just nurtures an even longer discussion about the "real" motivation behind IS and even more deaths as a direct consequence.
The longer you close your eyes the longer we, as humanity, will have to deal with this nonsense.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

The Prof has no authority over what my faith is.

Right on the defensive and reading what you want to read Eh?

Actually try reading the article instead of playing the victim card.

Who knows, you may actually learn something.

 

[Azih]

Right on the defensive and reading what you want to read Eh?.

There's nothing in there that I'm misquoting. And considering the bull that Interceptor is spewing right as we speak I think I am being justifiably defensive.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I see this:



and this



Then I see your interpretation and others that seems to allow it or condone as something only of the past (what is the date this only pertains to, and where is it in the quran?). Is there a hadith that specifically puts this only in the past?

The "answered here" part for 2:191:

None of that added portion is actually in the quran. Then you follow that by saying its "only applicable against those who attack your faith specifically because of faith."

Without your added commentary, the direct words still are lived and being used today as an excuse the groups use. It is quite evidently applicable today.

Further, even if you past date all of this, the philosophy is not congruent with supposed prophets before.

Like I said before:



Edit:
I am stepping away from my computer until tomorrow.
I will only be able to lightly surf with a tablet, so I will have to drop until then.

Again purposely ignoring the refering verses which proof muslims cannot be transgressors. I give up if people chose to be blind. Your knowledge of islam is showcased when you treat hadith on equal footing as Quran which to you and Daesh is fine but to most muslims is wrong as Quran overrides everythhng in the hadith if hadith contradicts.

What kind of faith do you want practiced if you only follow it by reading and not understanding. This is the problem with your and Daesh view of islam. Read but don't understand.

Rejecting moderate views and only accepting twisted radical views because that's how they conform to your view about islam

 

[Dugna]

Mohammed did the exact same things as the IS does today.
Why pray to the one and call the others unislamic?
Thats the whole problem with this debate and what the article in the OP is about.
You can´t build a cult based around a violent warlord, praise him as the ideal role model for all of mankind
and then pretend the Islamic state, which got all his ideas from the exact same person, has nothing to do with said person.

Thats hilarious, laughable, childish and even more important, unproductive.
It just nurtures an even longer discussion about the "real" motivation behind IS and even more deaths as a direct consequence.
The longer you close your eyes the longer we, as humanity, will have to deal with this nonsense.

The more annoying thing is they're trying the whole defense of

1. Islam is the one true religion and only god (allah) has say.
or
2. Muslims dictate what the religion is themselves

not realizing that they're both the same damn thing basically. Moderate Muslims can say they believe in 1 but that also makes them do 2. So then that leads to ISIS doing the same thing yet they call moderates not true Muslims, so it's a circle of people saying one isn't true when nobody is the "true" Muslim because it's all opinions.

Christians try this defense for stupid crap that happens in Christianity and nobody takes it seriously, so why is it now we're supposed to take it seriously because it's Islam?

 

[Netherscourge]

Hysteria and lawlessness are what fuels ISIS's gains.

They are unchecked. They are surrounded by sympathizers (or civillians just scared to death of challenging them). Their public atrocities are a direct challenge to the rest of the world and so long as there is no major, organized response, it will look "romantic" to Islamic extremists and bolster their morale. They see themselves as the "underdogs" staring down the "evil zionist blah blah blah".

They offer their members food, shelter, sex slaves and have convinced them all that God will give them sanctuary in their Heaven when they die so long as they support the cause, which is why they are so brazen and don't feel any fear of death or repercussions. They they think they are fighting for some greater cause. An Islamic patriotism of sorts.

Until images of ISIS soldiers lining the roads scorched or with carrion animals pecking away at their bodies start popping up on news sights and the internet, they'll keep doing their thing.

Shocking imagery is their propaganda (and recruitment) tool - but that same tool is what has to be used to defeat them. Images of THEM being killed and destroyed will stop their gains and ultimately end their movement because when people see ISIS literally going up in flames, their "cause" suddenly won't look so "romantic" to the extremists.

 

[Interceptor]

There's nothing in there that I'm misquoting. And considering the bull that Interceptor is spewing right as we speak I think I am being justifiably defensive.

Where´s the bull? Show me. ^^ Prove me wrong.
Or should i choose a more imaginary language like the mirror man.. stop being blind! Open your eyes. See the light.

 

[Azih]

The more annoying thing is they're

'They'? I'm the only one making the argument. Where the hell did 'they' come from? And if you've got some disagreement then you can just respond to me directly like an individual.

 

[Azih]

Where´s the bull? Show me. ^^ Prove me wrong.

About what? It being dumb to rank Muslims as being 'more or less' Muslim if you don't think Islam is even real? I've already done that.

Either God decides or no one does. Point Blank.

 

[Dugna]

'They'? I'm the only one making the argument. Where the hell did 'they' come from? And if you've got some disagreement then you can just respond to me directly like an individual.

It's the defense you and maninthemirror use alot, that ISIS members are not "true" Muslims. When a "true" Muslim is just an opinion of what you perceive is a "true" Muslim.

Again it's also the defense Christians make when somebody who interpreted the bible did something horrible, just say they're not a "true" christian. That kind of defense is laughed out of most places, so why're we supposed to take you two seriously when it's Islam?

 

[Azih]

It's the defense you and maninthemirror use alot, that ISIS members are not "true" Muslims. When a "true" Muslim is just an opinion of what you perceive is a "true" Muslim.

You're mixing us up for some bizarre reason. If you have an issue with something Mitm says then take it up with him/her. If you have an issue with something I said then take it up with me. There is no 'they'

 

[Dugna]

You're mixing us up for some bizarre reason. If you have an issue with something Mitm says then take it up with him/her. If you have an issue with something I said then take it up with me. There is no 'they'

Aren't you two muslims? You also seem to be making the same argument to defend Islam.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

There's nothing in there that I'm misquoting. And considering the bull that Interceptor is spewing right as we speak I think I am being justifiably defensive.

I've not read what Interceptor has said yet, I'm not that far in the thread so I'm going purely off of the front page. So genuinely I can't comment on that until I read it.

As for the front page though, it would be irresponsible to say that ISIS are not Islamic, they are (unfortunately). However nobody is saying that what ISIS say/do/believe is the real Islam (I don't think they are anyway) but burying your head in the sand and outright denying that they are Muslims is false.

It would be like saying the KKK are not Christians. I mean I'm sure Christians hate being associated with them all over the world but...they are ultimately Christians.

By outright denying it is where a fundamental problem lies.

Those who deny it feel that the people who say it are personally attacking them and their beliefs, when actually they are not. The people who say ISIS are Islamic, if I take myself as an example, I have no issues with Muslims who live peaceful, honest lives. I do have an issue with the Muslims who are causing chaos at the moment in the form of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Nusra etc.

The sooner people come to terms and accept that ISIS along with these other groups are in fact Islamic, the sooner we can all come together to try to come to a solution.

Until that happens there will be no solution, there will be no coming together and there will be no reform as you cannot fix something when so many people are in denial about the truth, and feeling victimised when that is not the intent,Otherwise it just comes back full circle.

 

[soul creator]

Huh? He can speak about Islam all he wants. Calling me someone who believe in a 'cotton candy' version of Islam while implying ISIS are real Muslims is illogical and dangerous though and there's no reasonable comparison to Reza Aslan writing a book about the historical Jesus.

Are you twisting my words or something?

I think the article's point is that everyone who self-identifies is a "real" member of their religion, from good to evil, because it's not like there's some objective, neutral, rational standard to judge what's "true" when it comes to most religious claims in the first place. At most, you have something like the Catholic Church in the Vatican, but we still call Catholics a member of their religion even if they don't do 90% of the things the Church wants them to (source: every progressive Catholic who tells me not to judge them based on official Church doctrine or what the Bible says). After all, we're talking about trying to interpret the whims of the all powerful divine creator of all existence, who apparently communicates through ancient texts from a completely different time period in a completely different society, and also communicates through vague things like "prayer", "visions", "personal experiences", "spiritual feelings", and so on. How does one define "this is reality and this isn't" when that's the basis we're working from? At most, you can say "this is what most people and scholars believe" and use that as the basis for defining the "real" version of a religion, but then what happens if a destructive majority takes over by force? Do they then become the "true" religion?

Argument by popularity or authority is usually not considered a valid approach when deciding what's real, after all.

As I mentioned earlier, Christian slaveholders and Christian abolitionists were *all* Christians, like MLK and Jerry Fallwell were both Christians, and they could all find justifications in ancient texts (or from their friends and family and immediate society) for their views about what God "really" wants. We can go back and forth about which interpretation is "right", but as long as we accept "what God wants" as an actual valid question, and as long as God doesn't actually come down and tell us directly what it wants, we will continue to have "differing interpretations" that vary all across the spectrum when it comes to religious claims. And attempting to "rationally" decide which is right and wrong will always inherently be difficult in regards to religious claims, because someone can always say they saw their interpretation in a vision or in a prayer or something.

And of course, we shouldn't question someone's personal faith and experiences because that would be arrogant and presumptuous (source: every religious person who has gotten annoyed when someone challenges their "personal lived experiences" by asking for evidence)

I, for example, would obviously prefer more people like Christian abolitionists rather than Christian slaveholders, but it's not like I can look at the bible as a whole and say their view is a "more rational interpretation". It's a nicer, and more productive interpretation, sure, but that's not the same as "more true". That's kind of the core problem with trying to interpret the whims of divine beings in any religion. And I don't really know how you can avoid that problem, without secularism taking hold.

 

[Kurdel]

Huh? He can speak about Islam all he wants. Calling me someone who believe in a 'cotton candy' version of Islam while implying ISIS are real Muslims is illogical and dangerous though and there's no reasonable comparison to Reza Aslan writing a book about the historical Jesus.

Are you twisting my words or something?

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

He isn't saying you aren't a real muslim, he is saying they are muslims and there is no denying it.

 

[sonicmj1]

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point to some extent about what this article is saying about ISIS's beliefs in relation to Islam. That might be because it isn't laid out as clearly as it could be, and I can see why some Muslims on this site are taking offense to the way it's structured.

What differentiates their interpretation from the large body of Muslim believers isn't their level of understanding of the text, or (merely) their orthodoxy. Their willingness to indulge in barbarism stems from a number of radical assumptions born from recent developments in Wahhabi and Salafi Islam, beginning with an increased willingness to declare other Muslims apostates worthy of death, and extending it to (with the establishment of their caliphate) the belief that they are the core of true Islam, fighting a defensive war against billions of non-believers and hundreds of millions of heretics attempting to eradicate them through cultural pressure. And when the religion faces an existential threat, anything goes, just as it did for the Israelites in the Old Testament.

ISIS is an apocalyptic cult within Islam arising from the religious "innovations" that supported Al Qaeda, and the decade and a half of military action in the Middle East following 9/11 which convinced those fanatical few that the modern world sought the end of their religion. The more the West turns its rhetoric against Islam as a whole, or declares ISIS false, the more certain these radicals are of the need to fight. And they'd love nothing more than to provoke everyone to battle them, to bring the destined End Times closer.

If we understand the basis of these religious assumptions, that opens up ways to attack their ideology on their own ground that go beyond mere expressions of incredulity at their violence. The article brings up the other "peaceful" Salafist at the end not to say that it's the only "true Islamic" alternative, but to say that it's one that comes from a similar perspective, yet leads to a very different political outcome by rejecting the primary assumption that allows ISIS to exist. And understanding what their long-term goals actually mean allows us to contain them more precisely instead of getting engaged in yet another massive fight that would lead to yet another power vacuum and cause yet more chaos.

I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant about a lot of Islam, but that's what I took from the article and from the discussions I've read about the religion between all kinds of believers over the course of my time on GAF.

 

[Interceptor]

About what? It being dumb to rank Muslims as being 'more or less' Muslim if you don't think Islam is even real? I've already done that.

Either God decides or no one does. Point Blank.

Nice cop out.
Don´t think, let god do the work. Inshallah.

 

[FStop7]

ISIS is the closest thing we've had to straight up movie villains since the Nazis. There's no nuance. There's no perspective. They're just evil.

 

[Virus]

Hitler could have abolished these terrorists and he would have made the world a better place at the same time. RIP Adolf. =[

 

[m_shortpants]

Hitler could have abolished these terrorists and he would have made the world a better place at the same time. RIP Adolf. =[

What the hell is up with your posts?

 

[ponpo]

Hitler could have abolished these terrorists and he would have made the world a better place at the same time. RIP Adolf. =[

lol is this re: Saddam posts?

Edit: I thought I was in that Chelsea racism thread. It makes even less sense here!

 

[HK-47]

ISIS is the closest thing we've had to straight up movie villains since the Nazis. There's no nuance. There's no perspective. They're just evil.

If you approach them like this you'll gain no real understanding. Its just an easy emotional response.

 

[Owed T'Alex]

The Prof has no authority over what my faith is.

I hate to be the (third?) one to tell you this, but you misread.

The offending sentence containing the term "cotton-candy":

But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.”

It's right there. The author does not call anybody a cotton-candy muslim, whatever that would even be. The view is cotton-candy, not the the muslims.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

It's the defense you and maninthemirror use alot, that ISIS members are not "true" Muslims. When a "true" Muslim is just an opinion of what you perceive is a "true" Muslim.

Again it's also the defense Christians make when somebody who interpreted the bible did something horrible, just say they're not a "true" christian. That kind of defense is laughed out of most places, so why're we supposed to take you two seriously when it's Islam?

What the Fuck are you talking about, who the fuck laughs at that .

 

[Kurdel]

Hitler could have abolished these terrorists and he would have made the world a better place at the same time. RIP Adolf. =[

You aren't funny with these "lol Hitler Nazis", just stop it.

 

[Sothpaw]

At the end of the day the civilized man always beats the savage. ISIS will be just another footnote to history because they have no place in the modern world.

 

[Dugna]

What the Fuck are you talking about, who the fuck laughs at that .

....the general world? Plenty of people laugh it out of any discussion involving stuff like crusades/KKK/WBC fuck every single time somebody mentions those 3 they're automatically addressed as Christians. Even though the greater moderate amount of Christians don't want to associate with them, yet mention that ISIS are Muslims and everybody just seems to forget that it's the same kinda thing as the top three.

 

[Sothpaw]

....the general world? Plenty of people laugh it out of any discussion involving stuff like crusades/KKK/WBC fuck every single time somebody mentions those 3 they're automatically addressed as Christians. Even though the greater moderate amount of Christians don't want to associate with them, yet mention that ISIS are Muslims and everybody just seems to forget that it's the same kinda thing as the top three.

Crusades and KKK really aren't relevant now. Not sure what WBC is. ISIS and radical Islam on the other hand is civilization's number one enemy atm. Wait I think I agree with what you said srry entering convo late.

 

[Maninthemirror]

At the end of the day the civilized man always beats the savage. ISIS will be just another footnote to history because they have no place in the modern world.

Daesh will be a has been forgotten blip in history less than 10 years from now realistically

 

[Dugna]

Crusades and KKK really aren't relevant now. Not sure what WBC is. ISIS and radical Islam on the other hand is civilization's number one enemy atm. Wait I think I agree with what you said srry entering convo late.

WBC is Westboro baptist church, basically the most extreme public thing Christians have atm.

 

[Sothpaw]

WBC is Westboro baptist church, basically the most extreme public thing Christians have atm.

I'm sure they have a bright future in America! JK.

 

[Maninthemirror]

It's the defense you and maninthemirror use alot, that ISIS members are not "true" Muslims. When a "true" Muslim is just an opinion of what you perceive is a "true" Muslim.

Again it's also the defense Christians make when somebody who interpreted the bible did something horrible, just say they're not a "true" christian. That kind of defense is laughed out of most places, so why're we supposed to take you two seriously when it's Islam?

Daesh are a group of muslim who don't act like a muslim is supposed to act like it a muslim is told to act

Like

and mix not up their belief with injustice — it is they who shall have peace, and who are rightly guided.”

“And if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust in Allah. Surely, it is He Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”


“And confound not truth with falsehood nor hide the truth, knowingly.”


“There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”


“O ye who believe! profane not the Signs of Allah, nor the Sacred Month, nor the animals brought as an offering, nor the animals of sacrifice wearing collars, nor those repairing to the Sacred House, seeking grace from their Lord, and His pleasure. And when you put off the pilgrims’ garb and are clear of the Sacred Territory, you may hunt. And let not the enmity of a people, that they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque, incite you to transgress. And help one another in righteousness and piety; but help not one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah; surely, Allah is severe in punishment.”



“They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin what is good and forbid evil, and hasten, vying with one another, in good works. And these are among the righteous.”

“Verily, Allah is with those who are righteous and those who do good.”

“And if Allah did not defend some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered.”

“.....And kill not yourselves. Surely, Allah is Merciful to you.”

“…and cast not yourselves into ruin with your own hands…”

Indeed, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed.

The reward of goodness is nothing but goodness.

And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best. And lo, he between whom and thyself was enmity will become as though he were a warm friend. But none is granted it save those who are steadfast; and none is granted it save those who possess a large share of good

Those who spend in prosperity and adversity, and those who suppress anger and pardon men; and Allah loves those who do good


So Allah gave them the reward of this world, as also an excellent reward of the next; and Allah loves those who do good.

And create not disorder in the earth after it has been set in order, and call upon Him in fear and hope. Surely, the mercy of Allah is nigh unto those who do good.

And when he attained his age of full strength, We granted him judgment and knowledge. And thus do We reward the doers of good.

Thou hast indeed fulfilled the dream.’ Thus indeed do We reward those who do good

Consort with them in kindness; and if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing wherein Allah has placed much good.

And him who seeks thy help, chide not.

The number one proof that Daesh don't act like muslims is that they are aggressors. Quran specifically states

1. Never be aggressors against any person or group
2. Always accept peace when offered
3. Never kill women children and elderly and unarmed men
4. Never force conversions
5. Dont hurt or kill apostates

By these 5 points alone Daesh don't act like a Muslim should.

Now you tell me yourself. All the Daesh threads on GAF daily, don't they break at least one of the rules above every single time ?

 

[Dugna]

Daesh are a group of muslim who don't act like a muslim is supposed to act like it a muslim is told to act

Again you're just saying "Well they're bad so obviously they're not Muslims!" which is again what Christians tried doing with KKK/WBC and guess what? The rest of the world called bullshit. No matter how many rules followers break of their religion they're still of that religion, you're not some special religion that's exempt that from that rule.

Accept that your religion has evils and try to fix them, stop acting like all of it is only good.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Again you're just saying "Well they're bad so obviously they're not Muslims!" which is again what Christians tried doing with KKK/WBC and guess what? The rest of the world called bullshit. No matter how many rules followers break of their religion they're still of that religion, you're not some special religion that's exempt that from that rule.

For a second stop taking the side of Daesh point of view and side with moderates for once.

a radical tea party member is an American and when he says he is the true patriot does that make it right if he says everything that goes against the ideals of the US constitution. Do you accept his view that he is a patriot or do you say that's his opinion doesn't mean he is one. You know who the true patriot is, who doesn't break the oath and the idea of what it means to be American and accepting of others which is what a radical tea partier does not do. Do you defend his view against democrats when they call him misled ?

If my religion had evils I would be an atheist today. And I have studied the faith and dealt with The likes of your argument enough to know my faith is strengthened every time I discuss my faith against all doubt. Have you studied my own faith more than me to know it is evil or are you judging it on the actions of idiots

 

[Dugna]

For a second stop taking the side of Daesh point of view and side with moderates for once.

a radical tea party member is an American and when he says he is the true patriot does that make it right if he says everything that goes against the ideals of the US constitution. Do you accept his view that he is a patriot or do you say that's his opinion doesn't mean he is one. You know who the true patriot is, who doesn't break the oath and the idea of what it means to be American and accepting of others which is what a radical tea partier does not do. Do you defend his view against democrats when they call him misled ?

If my religion had evils I would be an atheist today

Actually yes because that's their interpretation of what a "Patriot" is. Heck the term Patriot can be seen as Good/Evil/Grey all on your view of said "Patriot".

If I think that said "Patriot" is wrong I will call them out on it, but I will not call them a non American. Can't just accept what you think as good at the only thing part of a said group.

Also your religion does have evils, you're just being blind and trying to cover them up. Nothing in this world is pure good ever.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Actually yes because that's their interpretation of what a "Patriot" is. Heck the term Patriot can be seen as Good/Evil/Grey all on your view of said "Patriot".

If I think that said "Patriot" is wrong I will call them out on it, but I will not call them a non American. Can't just accept what you think as good at the only thing part of a said group.

Also your religion does have evils, you're just being blind and trying to cover them up.

No one is calling DAesh non muslim get that out of your head. Muslims are calling them out for not acting like a Muslim should act which I have stated above in points

And you really think I am being blinded despite studying my own faith ? I am trying to cover them up ? Smooth lol. This is hilarious on so many tragic levels that you think that way

 

[Dugna]

No one is calling DAesh non muslim get that out of your head. Muslims are calling them out for not acting like a Muslim should act which I have stated above in points

And you really think I am being blinded despite studying my own faith ? I am trying to cover them up ? Smooth lol. This is hilarious on so many tragic levels that you think that way

....You spent this whole time in this thread and every other thread about ISIS saying Daesh is not "true" Islam. Which is basically saying these people are not "true" Muslims, but now you're saying they're Muslims?

Also you're blinded by your own faith in your faith.

Anyway heading to bed you enjoy yourself.

 

[Maninthemirror]

....You spent this whole time in this thread and every other thread about ISIS saying Daesh is not "true" Islam. Which is basically saying these people are not "true" Muslims, but now you're saying they're Muslims?

Also you're blinded by your own faith in your faith.

Oh for the love of God...

Daesh not acting like muslim should doesn't make them non muslims. It just makes them radicalized muslims.

This is getting old now

I feel like I am talking to a Sith Lord asking me to search for my true feelings lol

 

[Virus]

I feel I embarrassed myself with my unnecessary, sardonic and half-wited contributions to this thread. Eh, this is me apologizing.

 

[?oe?oe]

Daesh are a group of muslim who don't act like a muslim is supposed to act like it a muslim is told to act

Like



The number one proof that Daesh don't act like muslims is that they are aggressors. Quran specifically states

1. Never be aggressors against any person or group
2. Always accept peace when offered
3. Never kill women children and elderly and unarmed men
4. Never force conversions
5. Dont hurt or kill apostates

By these 5 points alone Daesh don't act like a Muslim should.

Now you tell me yourself. All the Daesh threads on GAF daily, don't they break at least one of the rules above every single time ?

That's because it also states the opposite. Gotta love religions and its contradictions.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

No one is calling DAesh non muslim get that out of your head. Muslims are calling them out for not acting like a Muslim should act which I have stated above in points

And you really think I am being blinded despite studying my own faith ? I am trying to cover them up ? Smooth lol. This is hilarious on so many tragic levels that you think that way

Dude, I remember a conversation with you where you tried to claim that Mohammed used in essence a 'force push' and thus never physically pushed someone. You went to great lengths to prove Mohammed never used violence and was therefore pure/Holy.

 

[Naked Snake]

Cross posting from another thread because why not:

Heh, just saw this video. (Arabic only)

This is Muhammad Metwally Al Shaarawy, a high ranking Islamic official in Egypt and one of the most popular interpretors of Quran at the heart of "moderate Islam" (their Carl Sagan if you will), saying that if a Muslim doesn't pray because he or she is lazy, then they're warned for 3 days and if they don't repent and start praying after that then they're to be killed.

Yay for moderate Islam!

So peaceful and nonviolent.