What ISIS Really Wants (The Atlantic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's two things happening when words like nominal, not serious, cotton candy, cafeteria are used to describe a moderate believer's faiths.

1. It makes a pretty damn large assumption about what the faith actually is. This is illogical.

Well when I have family members picking and choosing what out of the Old Testament they want to support and believe in, what should I call them?

They don't support slavery, obviously...but, they fully admonish homosexuality. When you ask why, well duh it's in the Bible!

Firstly I reject your contention that I, as a moderate, am picking and choosing what out of Islam I believe. I firmly believe I don't.

So what should happen to those who commit adultery or apostasy?

Secondly do you really expect me to be able to deal with ISIS types effectively when they can just laugh me off as a nominal, not serious, cotton candy, cafeteria muslim who picks and chooses what to believe while they, according to Haykel and Harris and yourself etc., don't?

Tell them that regardless if they are using scripture to justify killing, enslaving, etc. that it doesn't justify it...because it's wrong. Because holy texts are not infallible.

Edit: I'm from a Shia Muslim family. My community is one of these ISIS type bastards favourite god damn targets to be killed. It's fucking frustrating to have outsiders chime in "Ayup, them people are serious about their faith, unlike you" and have to defend myself against that and have to establish my god damn credentials as a serious non cafeteria/cotton candy Muslim when what I should be doing is debunking these Al-Qaeda/Wahhabi inspired murderers.

Of course you are serious about your faith, and so are 'cafeteria Christians', but they recognize that certain things within their text are deplorable.
 
Well when I have family members picking and choosing what out of the Old Testament they want to support and believe in, what should I call them?

1. If Christianity is the one true Faith then God decides who's a serious vs a cafeteria Christian or not. Since you're not God you don't qualify.

2. If Christianity is not the one true Faith than Christianity is whatever any individual Christian thinks it is. Again since it doesn't seem like you're Christian. You don't qualify

That's why I said it's illogical to make these kinds of believer rankings that you seem to want to with 'cafeteria' and 'cotton candy' comments.

You can comment on it, you can call them out on it. But in either of the only two possibilities there are, you really don't get to decide what Christianity is.
 
1. If Christianity is the one true Faith then God decides who's a serious vs a cafeteria Christian or not. Since you're not God you don't qualify.

2. If Christianity is not the one true Faith than Christianity is whatever any individual Christian thinks it is. Again since it doesn't seem like you're Christian. You don't qualify

That's why I said it's illogical to make these kinds of believer rankings that you seem to want to with 'cafeteria' and 'cotton candy' comments.

You can comment on it, you can call them out on it. But in either of the only two possibilities there are, you really don't get to decide what Christianity is.

2 is just saying 1 is right, when all sects say "god" decides all the "true" believers then nobody is the "true". Also just because somebody isn't of that faith doesn't disqualify them from making their own interpretation and saying it's correct. Since all of these interpretations are part of a ideology that has no physical evidence as its base.
 
You can comment on it, you can call them out on it. But in either of the only two possibilities there are, you really don't get to decide what Christianity is.

Good thing I'm not deciding what Christianity is. If you say you are a Christian, then to me, you are a Christian. If you say you are a Muslim, then to me, you are a Muslim.

But if ask someone: Why do you admonish homosexuality, and they say the Bible tells me so. I have to wonder why is it they don't follow that same logic concerning slavery, adultery, theft, etc. etc. etc. Hence, me calling them a cafeteria Christian, because they are choosing which sections of the Bible applies and which do not.
 
Murder and Stealing don't matter if they're "morally" right at all they create physical observable problems in the world.
...so..can I legally start an army and create my state tomorrow? Since I can ascribe whatever subjectivity to an established set of principles and its still equally valid. I'll call it outer haven.
 
...so..can I legally start an army and create my state tomorrow? Since I can ascribe whatever subjectivity to an established set of principles and its still equally valid. I'll call it outer haven.

No you can't legally not because of moral reasons but because the physical observable impact creating such a state would show.
 
No you can't legally not because of moral reasons but because the physical observable impact creating such a state would show.
You are dodging really hard now. You said "no I cant create outer haven" (I'll leave the moral mumbo jumbo aside, no idea what the fuck its doing there) to which I ask, I thought all interpretations of the an established set of rules and principles were unequivocally equal. I dont understand why my interpretation of these principles that allow me to establish outer haven are any less valid than the federal government's?
 
What you're saying now is different than what you were saying earlier. I see that we have moved the goalposts from "Islam commands Muslims to kill infidels everywhere!!!" to "OK, but only God should be the one to kill and judge!". It's ok. The "excuse to kill" is a reason as opposed to desire, all within confines of law. Now if you said he ordered the Quraish to be attacked without any treaty in place, I would be inclined to agree with your position. But the fact of the matter is, people broke the law, people were punished. You have to analyze the whole situation rather than singularly look at events. Muhammad was the leader of the newly established state of Medina, bound by law (Constitution of Medina) and various treaties (Hudaybiyyah being one). He acted according to the contents of treaty, and was more than fair in dealing with the oath breakers by escorting those who stopped, and staying clear of those that didn't violate the trust. Wouldn't you agree?

You start off on the wrong foot. Philosophy of "directly instructed to kill infidels" is not true, reasons for which I've explained in various above posts. Muslims believe the message of Tawhid (oneness) has been true among all the prophets of Bible, everything else is subject to questioning. Muslims don't believe all the stories of the prophets in Bible are 100% true. The first 13 years of Muhammad's mission, Muslims were tortured, executed, harassed, exiled and eventually kicked out of Mecca. After the Medinans agreed to make Muhammad their leader, diplomacy, engagement and treaties ensued with the Meccans. Jesus' ministry lasted for a few years. He had no state to run, no diplomacy to broker with neighboring tribes, no peace treaties to settle with quarrels and no army to defend his state in case the enemy attacked. Besides, he was adamant about his message of God, and said that his message is the message of sword, not of peace. His ministry ended too soon. But if you look at Moses, David and Solomon, their mission was more similar to Muhammad's in the sense that they had armies, wars, quarreling and disputes. Taking all the Ishmaelite prophets into consideration, Muhammad's mission does not seem exclusive at all.


You telling me that I am moving goalposts proves that you have not been comprehending what I have written in every post in this thread.

I have stated, from my very first post no-less, that there is a problem with Mohammad telling people to kill. No matter what excuse you use for why it is okay to kill, the text does indeed give a directive to kill directly to its followers.

This is a rather large jump from where deities are the expected force to issue death and judgement. This is an honest philosophic dilemma for people who honestly like to learn about all religions. Mohammed telling his followers to kill, is contrary to the philosophy of the prophet who came before him, and the same prophet muslims believe is supposed to return.

I also question your actual learning or understanding of the philosophy of Jesus, if you are trying to convey that his philosophy (the written words, not the churches, people, nations) "is the message of sword, not of peace." I am going to assume you have not done any reading (Old/New Testament) on your own, and have been told this by your scholars. Since you yourself seem to downplay actual self interpretation. The only part of the philosophy that goes outside of peace, is the final parts of the story in regards to the final judgement. Of course that still stays within my philosophy of the prophet/deity doing the judgement and killing, not telling the followers to do the killing as Mohammad does.

Disingenuous or purposefully ignorant discussion about the words and philosophies and myths, besides being no fun, makes any honest discussion pointless. It seems like every other response is either an accusation or you guys just gloss over all of actual details.

Again, the whole point is that these groups are indeed using the literal translations to license their killing. Making excuses for the texts, and not creating official doctrine to temper those words is just going to allow these groups to continue forever.
 
Hence, there is a correct and an incorrect interpretation of the law, which goes back to my point of not all interpretations are equal.

Secular laws are concerned with it's physical effects on real life human beings, so at the very least, there's that common standard (known as "reality") to work from. It's messy and imperfect, but hey, at least "invisible beings" don't play a role in that discussion. In fact, we loudly protest (everyone does, at least in secular countries) when people try to bring invisible beings into the discussion of law.

Unfortunately, religious claims (and "laws" that claim to be inspired by them) are concerned with those invisible, supernatural beings, divine judgments, spiritual visions, prayer, etc. How do you propose we resolve those types of questions, without the relevant supernatural being coming down and directly getting involved?

The problem with religion is that regardless of how much scholarly interpretation of a text one does, someone can come along and say "God told me this, this is what he really wants. He wants us to interpret things this way". Sure, you could try to "rationally" challenge their interpretation, and point to how "they disagree with the scholars" but it won't be convincing. Because he has god on his side. That's why the notion of having god on one's side (and society encouraging the viewpoint that there's a god and he's concerned with the behavior of human beings) can be so dangerous.

And what I've heard in almost every religious discussion I've been in, who am I (or you, or anyone else) to say someone's personal experience and sincerely held belief is wrong? How do I know that God isn't actually communicating with them? I can't prove that God isn't talking to that person! That would be arrogant of me. Because hey, saying someone's God isn't real is apparently equally as close-minded and faith-based as a fundamentalist thinking their God is real. Or so the usual story goes in those discussions.
 
You are dodging really hard now. You said "no I cant create outer haven" (I'll leave the moral mumbo jumbo aside, no idea what the fuck its doing there) to which I ask, I thought all interpretations of the an established set of rules and principles were unequivocally equal. I dont understand why my interpretation of these principles that allow me to establish outer haven are any less valid than the federal government's?

Your comparing interpretations of a religion (which is something not based in reality) to laws which are formed and adapted to what the actual reality of the world is. Again you forming a state in the middle of a country would cause physical and observable consequences.

Also morals have alot to do with religion which is the subject here so it isn't mumbo jumbo in this sense. If my interpretation of something like say "Allah" is that he's a gay guy who walks around LA sipping coffee while blogging about the infidels, what is there to say my interpretation isn't as valid as a moderate muslims? Allah isn't a physical observable thing, it's just an idea in somebodies head.
 
Edit: I'm from a Shia Muslim family.

Out of curiosity, you have any links on Shia Muslims I can read up on? What they are, what are their beliefs, what laws do they follow, etc. Please no wikilinks since it's not a valid source per maninthemirror.
JK wikilinks are fine.
 
... But that's just one guys opinion.

One guy who is a professor at Princeton and considered the leading expert on ISIS ideology by other academics... but yeah continue to act like this is just some random dude's opinion if that makes you feel better.

"the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology"

"Every academic I asked about the Islamic State’s ideology sent me to Haykel."
 
Out of curiosity, you have any links on Shia Muslims I can read up on? What they are, what are their beliefs, what laws do they follow, etc. Please no wikilinks since it's not a valid source per maninthemirror.
JK wikilinks are fine.

Wikipedia is fine on this topic. There's other wikis out there that.... really aren't. Theologically speaking I'm not particularly Shia, but that's certainly my community that's been persecuted by Al-Qaeda types for decades now. To have the Al-Qaeda types be painted as serious muslims by pundits like Haykel, Harris while moderates that get killed get painted as 'nominal, not serious, cotton candy' ones is a horrible feeling. (and hey look xbhaskarx is right on board! Thanks for committing to spamming that guy's thoughts at every possible opportunity xbhaskarx! ISIS couldn't ask for someone to spread their nonsense any better.)

Hence, me calling them a cafeteria Christian, because they are choosing which sections of the Bible applies and which do not.
Well I think I'll leave it to those guys whether they consider that to mean 'less' Christian or 'more' Christian. Can't speak for them.

I can tell you straight though that terms like 'nominal, not serious, muslim... cotton candy view of Islam.. not aware of legal and historical requirements etc.' applied to moderate muslims in comparison to ISIS types definitely make moderates 'less' muslim than ISIS Types and leads to the many incredibly horrible problems. One of the biggest that I didn't post in my 2 points earlier is that it feeds and validates the moronic narrative of a Clash of Civilizations. That's BS that drives Anti-Western sentiment in a lot of Muslim Majority countries and Islamophoic sentiment in Western ones.
 
Its going to take us time to accept the idea that necessary wars still exist after spending a decade and a half fighting unnecessary ones and getting all rightfully shameful. Especially when this new, regretfully necessary war is pretty much our causing in the first place via said unnecessary wars. Uhg.
 
"If WBC are christian then why don't they have support from the rest of the community and why don't they read our bible?"

If WBC are accepted as Christians even when the rest of the moderates hate them, then ISIS should be accepted as Islamic.

Except I don't know many people that view WBC as Christians. They are a crack pot organization. People don't take them serious as a religious organization.
 
British boots on the ground (well one pair of boots)

A serving British soldier has left his army base and travelled to fight with Kurdish forces against Islamic State in northern Iraq.

The 19-year-old serviceman said he was joining the Peshmerga in their battle against the extremists because he wanted to help them.

The man, who is not being named, told his parents of the news in a text message a couple of days ago and has informed friends he intends to spend a year in the region.

He travelled via Dubai - telling his family he was taking a holiday there - and is not officially AWOL as he is currently on leave.

However, an Army source said that if the soldier outstayed his period of leave he would face discipline for going AWOL.

The soldier has been in the Army since leaving school at 16 and is known to have been been learning Arabic.

One text message to his family said: "I've gone to join the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. I'm with other British people and a Canadian at the moment.

cegrab-20150219-182019-159-1-480x360.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/1430566/uk-soldier-leaves-base-to-fight-islamic-state
 
...so..can I legally start an army and create my state tomorrow? Since I can ascribe whatever subjectivity to an established set of principles and its still equally valid. I'll call it outer haven.

Yes. The only people that will do that is people that want you to have that label because they don't like the label of "Army" in the first place.
 
I would like to know the answer to this as well. Azih?

Now we're getting into theology while my focus on those who spread bullshit about ISIS being 'more Muslim' or more accurate followers of the letter of Islamic texts remains unaddressed. Both the incredible illogic of it and the many serious problems it causes.

Alright fine.

Islam is pretty clear that you should follow the laws of the land you're in so since there's no laws against apostasy and adultery in Canada than nothing.

Assuming that's not true then

There is no (earthly) penalty for apostasy in the Quran. I don't accept the Hadith.

The (earthly) penalty for adultery is lashing if four people witness the adultery actually happening which is a requirement high enough that it's incredibly unlikely that it would actually be fulfilled. The Quran also turns it back on possible accusers by saying:

"“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient”"

In the far more likely circumstance that one spouse accuses the other then the Quran says "and those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful. And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars. But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars. And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful". So each side swears five times and... then nothing happens. (24:4 and 24:6-9).

Of course if the laws of the land don't have anything like this then none of this applies.
 
Azih, you are mis-interpreting the cotton-candy statement (ironically enough).

He's not attempting to 'rank' interpretations by 'validity' or how 'true' they are, he is saying that the interpretation that ISIS have, as well as the actions that they are carrying out and justifying with that interpretation, is, historically speaking, closer to that which was held by Muslims in the past than the modern view of the moderate Muslim is.

Now, he may be dead wrong about that claim, I don't know enough about actual Middle Eastern history (not the glamourised versions you'll find in religious texts) but that is what he is saying rather than saying any particular interpretation is more or less 'true'.

EDIT:To clarify the cotton-candy bit some more, he says that because modern moderate Muslims are reluctant to accept or admit to themselves that in the past the prevailing interpretation of Islam was pretty extreme by today's standards, quite different to a modern moderate view (and again closer to ISIS's current interpretation). He's saying that ISIS are an anachronism.
 
Azih, you are mis-interpreting the cotton-candy statement (ironically enough).
I really doubt it, the rest of the article makes it a point to mention how 'serious' and 'assiduous' ISIS types are in their dedication to following Islam as compared to 'cotton candy politically correct, embarrassed' moderates. Plus, like I said, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Sam Harris comments on 'nominal muslims not serious about their faith" and all the gaffers who are right on board with declaring ISIS really actually muslim and everyone who denies this as tiresome apologists who just need to admit Islam is insane as a first step to reforming themselves makes it clear what the message is.
 
Wikipedia is fine on this topic. There's other wikis out there that.... really aren't. Theologically speaking I'm not particularly Shia, but that's certainly my community that's been persecuted by Al-Qaeda types for decades now. To have the Al-Qaeda types be painted as serious muslims by pundits like Haykel, Harris while moderates that get killed get painted as 'nominal, not serious, cotton candy' ones is a horrible feeling. (and hey look xbhaskarx is right on board! Thanks for committing to spamming that guy's thoughts at every possible opportunity xbhaskarx! ISIS couldn't ask for someone to spread their nonsense any better.)

Well I think I'll leave it to those guys whether they consider that to mean 'less' Christian or 'more' Christian. Can't speak for them.

I can tell you straight though that terms like 'nominal, not serious, muslim... cotton candy view of Islam.. not aware of legal and historical requirements etc.' applied to moderate muslims in comparison to ISIS types definitely make moderates 'less' muslim than ISIS Types and leads to the many incredibly horrible problems. One of the biggest that I didn't post in my 2 points earlier is that it feeds and validates the moronic narrative of a Clash of Civilizations. That's BS that drives Anti-Western sentiment in a lot of Muslim Majority countries and Islamophoic sentiment in Western ones.

I'm done with the cotton candy statement because I'm sure no valid argument is changing your mind on the subject. As far as the wikilinks, which would you'd like me to use? You said some are fine and some aren't. I would hate to misinterpret Shia using unacceptable links.
 
I'm done with the cotton candy statement because I'm sure no valid argument is changing your mind on the subject. As far as the wikilinks, which would you'd like me to use? You said some are fine and some aren't. I would hate to misinterpret Shia using unacceptable links.

As I said wikipedia is fine. As in www.Wikipedia.com

'Valid argument'? We're all guessing and what Haykel really meant, but I've got Sam Harris comments and plenty of gaffer opinion on what "Islam is really like" as backup. And it's bizarre to me that I'm being pilloried for taking adjectives like 'politically correct, embarrassed, cotton candy' at face value.
 
I really doubt it, the rest of the article makes it a point to mention how 'serious' and 'assiduous' ISIS types are in their dedication to following Islam as compared to 'cotton candy politically correct, embarrassed' moderates. Plus, like I said, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Sam Harris comments on 'nominal muslims not serious about their faith" and all the gaffers who are right on board with declaring ISIS really actually muslim and everyone who denies this as tiresome apologists who just need to admit Islam is insane as a first step to reforming themselves.
Then you are mis-interpreting the whole article. The wider point he is making is that the West is having a hard time dealing with ISIS because they cannot bring themselves to believe that at heart ISIS are being sincere about the motivations for what they are doing, that deep down they don't really believe in their interpretation of Islam, because it is so far removed from the modern world.

Later on in the article he discussed another sect that are just as serious, and in a way anachronistic, as ISIS are, but because they are also peaceful they don't get the same incredulity directed at them (possibly because they don't get the same level of attention, but still). He puts forward the notion that as there are sects that are, in their own way, just as 'hardline' and literal as ISIS and nobody doubts their sincerity, there's no reason to doubt the sincerity of ISIS in believing what they claim to believe.

I can't speak on the subject of this Sam Harris (never heard of him) or for other posters on GAF, but you are mistaken when you believe that this article is an attack on yourself or any other Muslim (except ISIS). Like you, I would rather you spend your energy convincing people that moderate Muslims are not terrorists in waiting and not waste your energy on defending against this article, there's no need.
 
No one needs to do this.
Sadly, it seems they do. If I've understood Azih's complaints about posters on GAF for instance, there are no shortage of people who think that because ISIS's interpretation is violent and abhorrent, it therefore follows that all interpretations of Islam have a violent and abhorrent component to them, just to a greater or lesser degree depending.
 
Interesting. I see some posting on if Christians today are similar and I would say probably in some areas but in the West they may have similar beliefs but nothing would ever come of them. Like you wouldn't see a Christian State of Indiana and Ohio sprout up and go Biblical on some heretics. But put Christianity in a volatile region and I think similar things would happen with an extremist Christian flavor.

The history of the US definitely proved this idea
 
Sadly, it seems they do. If I've understood Azih's complaints about posters on GAF for instance, there are no shortage of people who think that because ISIS's interpretation is violent and abhorrent, it therefore follows that all interpretations of Islam have a violent and abhorrent component to them, just to a greater or lesser degree depending.

It's not the moderate muslim's problem if people want to generalize them. They are guilty of nothing and have to apologize for nothing just because people are bigots.
 
You telling me that I am moving goalposts proves that you have not been comprehending what I have written in every post in this thread.

I have stated, from my very first post no-less, that there is a problem with Mohammad telling people to kill. No matter what excuse you use for why it is okay to kill, the text does indeed give a directive to kill directly to its followers.

This is a rather large jump from where deities are the expected force to issue death and judgement. This is an honest philosophic dilemma for people who honestly like to learn about all religions. Mohammed telling his followers to kill, is contrary to the philosophy of the prophet who came before him, and the same prophet muslims believe is supposed to return.

I also question your actual learning or understanding of the philosophy of Jesus, if you are trying to convey that his philosophy (the written words, not the churches, people, nations) "is the message of sword, not of peace." I am going to assume you have not done any reading (Old/New Testament) on your own, and have been told this by your scholars. Since you yourself seem to downplay actual self interpretation. The only part of the philosophy that goes outside of peace, is the final parts of the story in regards to the final judgement. Of course that still stays within my philosophy of the prophet/deity doing the judgement and killing, not telling the followers to do the killing as Mohammad does.

Disingenuous or purposefully ignorant discussion about the words and philosophies and myths, besides being no fun, makes any honest discussion pointless. It seems like every other response is either an accusation or you guys just gloss over all of actual details.

Again, the whole point is that these groups are indeed using the literal translations to license their killing. Making excuses for the texts, and not creating official doctrine to temper those words is just going to allow these groups to continue forever.
Well yes, the goalposts have moved from "the Quran instructs the believer to kill infidel!" to "Only God should be the one doing it!". If you originally started off with "I understand why the Prophet engaged in warfare, but I don't understand why God himself couldn't just send a plague or something", we will be having a vastly different coversation. The first point, as I made abundantly clear, is within the confines of a specific treaty (or treaties, to be more precise). I don't really need to explain to you all this. You are smarter than ISIS. For them, context does not matter. I explained very clearly, that it is not an excuse to kill out of desire, but a reason bound by laws and trust. I also explained to you using an example of saying "US has a directive to kill", but taken within the framework of a military engagement, it then becomes "US has a directive to kill/capture the enemies that broke the truce/declared a war", it is not as inflammatory. You refuse to afford the same framework of context sensitive dimensions to this data, and instead focus on the words "kill". Yes, the words are there. Yes the words are specific. But the words are narrating a contextual scenario as it was happening! It is language 101, and ISIS has flunked it rather spectacularly. The Quran took over a period of 23 years to be completed, so of course it encompassed everything from inheritance rights to warfare, as it is Arabia in the Iron age we're dealing with. Just because the extremists do not have reading comprehension skills, should not mean the texts should have been written in a children's storybook level, because it's not the text's fault that there are neanderthals that cannot apply thinking skills.
this is a rather large jump from where deities are the expected force to issue death
Well, the Quran does say that it is Allah who is issuing the judgement for the polytheists that broke the truce, not Muhammad. All the directives, which you quoted in Chapter 9, are supposedly from Allah. There is not one singular place where Muhammad interjects and says "lets do y". I'm sure you don't actually believe it's Allah who is saying all that, but simply Muhammad making stuff up. Which is why I afforded you the latitude to ignore the theology, but if you want to bring the theology, then you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say, God ordered David to go DESTROY the Amalekites is different than God ordering Muhammad to attack the Tribes that broke the truce. But you probably also overlooked my statement, where I said that Muslims do not believe the stories in bible are 100% true. That leaves some leeway to what the old prophets, including Jesus, taught, said and did. With that being said, I already explained that Jesus' ministry lasted a few years, and he did not have any state to run, treaties to fulfill or an army to lead. Neither was he in charge of tribes quabbling with each other. Muslims believe, that Jesus was only sent to Jews, and had a specific message for them. He did not come to unite everyone, nor prosleytize to the pagans, unlike Muhammad, which Muslims believe was sent for everyone. Jesus' message did include statements such as the one of the sword I mentioned, and also that he came to uphold the Mosaic law, and also that his message will divide families. Yes, Muslims believe Jesus will return. But do you know why? To lead an army. Read up on Islamic apocrypha.

I'm not being disingenuous, or being ignorant purposefully at all. You started the discussion with out of context verses. I merely provided the context. How is that disingenuous. If there was any "disingenuity", it was from you, who said the context about the "treaty" does not matter, and you scurried quickly to find translations that used a synonym for the word Treaty (failing to realize that the underlying Arabic language used the word for making an agreement with someone, and the fact that all Quranic tafsirs understood this point when this chapter was mentioned). The fact that there are extremists quoting verses out of context is not a slight against the texts, but a remark against their understanding. They do not have the correct understanding, and instead of blaming them for their lack of reasoning, you want to blame the texts. It's an illogical, ridiculous and fallacious claim.

Secular laws are concerned with it's physical effects on real life human beings, so at the very least, there's that common standard (known as "reality") to work from. It's messy and imperfect, but hey, at least "invisible beings" don't play a role in that discussion. In fact, we loudly protest (everyone does, at least in secular countries) when people try to bring invisible beings into the discussion of law.

Unfortunately, religious claims (and "laws" that claim to be inspired by them) are concerned with those invisible, supernatural beings, divine judgments, spiritual visions, prayer, etc. How do you propose we resolve those types of questions, without the relevant supernatural being coming down and directly getting involved?

The problem with religion is that regardless of how much scholarly interpretation of a text one does, someone can come along and say "God told me this, this is what he really wants. He wants us to interpret things this way". Sure, you could try to "rationally" challenge their interpretation, and point to how "they disagree with the scholars" but it won't be convincing. Because he has god on his side. That's why the notion of having god on one's side (and society encouraging the viewpoint that there's a god and he's concerned with the behavior of human beings) can be so dangerous.

And what I've heard in almost every religious discussion I've been in, who am I (or you, or anyone else) to say someone's personal experience and sincerely held belief is wrong? How do I know that God isn't actually communicating with them? I can't prove that God isn't talking to that person! That would be arrogant of me. Because hey, saying someone's God isn't real is apparently equally as close-minded and faith-based as a fundamentalist thinking their God is real. Or so the usual story goes in those discussions.



But I'm not at all talking about people speaking with God. In Islam there is no notion of "gdivine uidance", or divine spirit guiding your pen or whatever, as opposed to say the Pope. Even the prophets are not divine. I am talking simply about whether a standard set of principles and laws, Quran in our case, can have equally valid interpretations from a layperson to a scholar. Historically the doctrine was delegated to the Mufassir to handle, when it came to interpretation and exegesis, and it has always been such a case. The question of supernatural is not at all needed in the discussion, when we are comparing a few lines of a text with a few lines of what the law "stipulates". The poster said "physical observable impact" is the reason why I can't create outer haven. To which I say, my interpretation allows me to create it. Now obviously it is one of three things: either my interpretation is incorrect, correct or somewhere in between. In either case, I have arrived to an interpretation that is not just less valid, it is invalid beyond any recourse. I cannot create outerhaven in Wyoming and not expect to be thrown in prison when the feds eventually destroy it and put me in a court room. My point being, a similar set of principles and laws are there. There are established interpretations, based on comprehensive understanding, and then there is knee-jerk reactionary movements like ISIS.
Your comparing interpretations of a religion (which is something not based in reality) to laws which are formed and adapted to what the actual reality of the world is. Again you forming a state in the middle of a country would cause physical and observable consequences.

Also morals have alot to do with religion which is the subject here so it isn't mumbo jumbo in this sense. If my interpretation of something like say "Allah" is that he's a gay guy who walks around LA sipping coffee while blogging about the infidels, what is there to say my interpretation isn't as valid as a moderate muslims? Allah isn't a physical observable thing, it's just an idea in somebodies head.
I'm not comparing interpretation of a religion, rather a part of the text of the religion, to a set of laws. The 10 commandments, for example. I'm not arguing whether who or what really spoke to God, but rather principles set in stone (no pun intended) as we have now. One cannot look at "Thou shalt not steal" and come to the conclusion "stealing is ok!". In the same way, the criminal law says you cannot steal other peoples' property, and you cannot come to the conclusion that stealing other peoples' property is ok. In both cases, you do not have "valid" interpretation.
If my interpretation of something like say "Allah" is that he's a gay guy who walks around LA sipping coffee while blogging about the infidels, what is there to say my interpretation isn't as valid as a moderate muslims? Allah isn't a physical observable thing, it's just an idea in somebodies head.
Because Islam establishes facts regarding this diety; He is only one, He does not take the shape of any living or inanimate entity, and there is no living or inanimate entity that resembles him, and "There is nothing like unto him". Even though it's a belief, there are strict rules regarding it. Similarly, there are strict rules regarding every other article of faith.
 
I'd like to underscore this point.

RustyNails posted a list of 15 very specific points about "how to read the Quran" which struck me as preposterously specific, almost an arsenal of spin, including several obviously factual errors ("the science of interpreting metaphor and simile?" are you kidding me). If I were to re-write that list and say you need to learn these 15 semi- to totally-obscure rules before you can effectively interpret the meaning of Sam Harris, how do you think that would go over? Maybe HE's speaking in metaphor, there were treaties, context is key etc etc etc ad infinitum.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but these rules may be obscure to you, but are a long established tradition in Islam. It's also comical how you think that the words of Sam Harris are the same as Quran. Maybe to you it isn't, but it shows a severe lack of perspective in your approach. But don't take my word for it. There are way more than 15 qualifications that Wikipedia lists. Here is an even more comprehensive take:
1. The proper intentions, since the Prophet [sall-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said: “All actions are by intentions.” [3] The mufassir must intend to please Allâh by this action of interpreting the Qur’ân, and he must intend to guide people to the Straight Path to the best of his abilities.

2. The correct Islâmic beliefs {‘aqîdah). If a person is not a Muslim or of a heretical or misguided sect, then he cannot be trusted in interpreting the Qur’ân, for his motive will be to defame Islâm, or to defend his particular sect or beliefs.

3. To be free from practising or believing in innovations, and to respect the Qur’ân. If a person is innovating in the religion of Allâh, then he will have no qualms about innovating in the interpretation of the Book of Allâh. Also, the mufassir must love and respect the Qur’ân, and have the proper beliefs concerning it. Part of this belief is that he must believe that the Qur’ân is the actual kalâm of Allâh (and not an “expression” of the kalâm of Allâh!]. Ibn Qayyim [d.758 A. H.] said: “…[a mufassir] must witness that it [the Qur’ân] is the kalâm of Allâh, which Allâh actually spoke, and which was revealed to the Prophet [sall-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] by inspiration. And none can grasp its meanings unless his heart is free of misgivings and doubts with regards to the Qur’ân, and if a person does not really believe that the Qur’ân is from Allâh, then there is a disease in his heart [which prevents him from understanding the Qur’ân].” [4]

4. Repentance and a pious heart. This condition means that a mufassir must fear Allâh to the best of his abilities, and if he falls into a sin, he must immediately repent to Allâh for that sin, and not return to it. This is because, as Ibn Qayyim said: “No heart can understand the Qur’ân, or grasp its meanings, except if it is pure, and it is impossible for a heart full of evils and innovations to understand the meanings of the Qur’ân properly.” [5]

5. A thorough and proper understanding of the fundamentals of religion [‘aqîdah], so that a mufassir can avoid falling into many of the heresies and innovations that misguided sects did with regards to the understanding of the Qur’ân.

6. Following the proper methodology of tafsîr. A basic introduction to this methodology was outlined in the previous section.

7. Knowledge of the Arabic language and its vocabulary. Such knowledge must, of course, be on a scholarly level; a person whose primary language is Arabic is not necessarily knowledgeable of Arabic to the level that is required to interpret the Qur’ân.

8. Knowledge of Arabic grammar (nahw).

9. Knowledge of Arabic morphology (sjirf).

10. Knowledge of the basis of Arabic words and word structures (ishtiqâq).

11. Knowledge of Arabic rhetoric, eloquence and manners of oratory. [6]

12. The knowledge of the sahîh, da’îf shâdh and bâtil qira’âts.

13. The knowledge of the principles of fiqh (Usûl-ul-Fiqh), so that he can interpret the verses pertaining to laws in a proper manner.

14. The knowledge of fiqh itself, so that he is aware of the various interpretations of the verses pertaining to laws.

15. The knowledge of asbâb an-nuzûl, and related sciences.

16. The knowledge of nâsikh from its mansûkh, and related sciences.

17. The knowledge of the hadîth of the Prophet [sall-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam], in particular those related to the interpretation of the Qur’ân.

18. The knowledge of all the other branches of Ulûm al-Qur’ân, including makkî and madanî, muhkam and mutashâbih, and the types of i’jâz of the Qur’ân.

19. A divine endowment that is not possible to obtain by one’s self. This is a type of gift from Allâh to whomever He chooses. This type of intellect was what the Prophet [sall-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] prayed for when he prayed for Ibn ‘Abbâs: “O Allâh, grant him an understanding of interpretation.”

From this list, which is far from exhaustive, it can be appreciated that not everyone is qualified to pick up the Qur’ân and start interpreting it, in particular if he is not. Even familiar with Arabic! Of the fifteen conditions that as-Suyûtî mentions in his list, seven – almost half – are directly related to the knowledge of the Arabic language. In addition, the knowledge required for every other condition (in terms of books and scholars) is not available in any language other than Arabic! It is not surprising, therefore, to see Shaykh-ul-Islâm ibn Taymiyyah [d. 728 A.H.] saying that: “…the Arabic language is a part of the religion (of Islâm)!” [7]
Here is a link to another one
By Abû Ammâr Yasir Qadhi
An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’ân, Pgs. 324-326
Here's a link to another one if you still don't believe me.
 
Now we're getting into theology while my focus on those who spread bullshit about ISIS being 'more Muslim' or more accurate followers of the letter of Islamic texts remains unaddressed. Both the incredible illogic of it and the many serious problems it causes.

Alright fine.

Islam is pretty clear that you should follow the laws of the land you're in so since there's no laws against apostasy and adultery in Canada than nothing.

Assuming that's not true then

There is no (earthly) penalty for apostasy in the Quran. I don't accept the Hadith.

The (earthly) penalty for adultery is lashing if four people witness the adultery actually happening which is a requirement high enough that it's incredibly unlikely that it would actually be fulfilled. The Quran also turns it back on possible accusers by saying:

"“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient”"

In the far more likely circumstance that one spouse accuses the other then the Quran says "and those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful. And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars. But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars. And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful". So each side swears five times and... then nothing happens. (24:4 and 24:6-9).

Of course if the laws of the land don't have anything like this then none of this applies.
Well, now there are two things that need clarification:

[1] So in countries where there are harsh and barbaric punishments for apostasy and adultery and the like, do you agree with these punishments?

[2] Regardless of whatever earthly punishment is or isn't given, the Quran states that the punishment for apostasy is eternal damnation in Hell. Do you agree with this?
 
In hindsight, I wish God, in all its wisdom, would have written out its rules in a less ambiguous way that's not so prone to violent misinterpretations. Even omnipotent beings have their off days, I guess. It even got a mulligan with Jesus, but that didn't go so well either.
 
ISIS's goals have always been clear and straight forward: create an Islamic caliphate that stretches all around the world to enforce Islamic rules everywhere possible. This is just an echo of Mohammad's original vision which he started to execute during his life, and was carried out by Islamic caliphates after his death.

ISIS is an ideology. Drones and military attacks might slow them down, even temporary stop them, but their ideas will live on, and since their honest interpretations are supported by hundreds of years of Islamic law, they will always have supporters.
 
It's not the moderate muslim's problem if people want to generalize them. They are guilty of nothing and have to apologize for nothing just because people are bigots.

It's not their fault, but practically speaking it is their problem as they will be the ones who are negatively affected as opinion is increasingly polarised against them.

I've not said they should apologise, far from it, I was responding to Azih's own expressed desire to better spend his time fighting the perception of ISIS as representing Muslims generally.
 
I'd like to underscore this point.

RustyNails posted a list of 15 very specific points about "how to read the Quran"

it's the never ending slippery slope of, "no, no, no -- this is the correct interpretation; all other interpretations are blasphemous!"

It's the usual game of saying that every piece of moral teaching or fortune cookie prophecy that seems to have been accurate is 100% the correct interpretation, but when you point out something that is immoral or an obviously contradictory statement to what we now know about the world through science then we're obviously just stupid and ignorant and not reading it correctly. The honest truth is that yes this particular holy book, as with all holy books, has it's share of moral teachings that still apply today and prophecy that just happened to stick like so much spaghetti thrown at a wall. It's also not surprising in the least that you can answer pretty much every reading of a seemingly immoral or wicked teaching with a "positive" one. I don't understand how it's a good argument to say "You guys don't know what your talking about. How can Islam teach people to kill infidels when it also has this sunny, happy verse over yonder that says the opposite?" All you end up doing in my view is pointing out the obvious: that this is an ancient man made book full of all sorts of internal inconsistencies to say the least. The only way around this is to take the good at face value and metaphor/contextualize/interpret the bad, which i'm sure may be legitimate in some instances but to think it applies literally everywhere it advocates immoral nonsense is crazy.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but these rules may be obscure to you, but are a long established tradition in Islam.

In hindsight, I wish God, in all its wisdom, would have written out its rules in a less ambiguous way that's not so prone to violent misinterpretations. Even omnipotent beings have their off days, I guess. It even got a mulligan with Jesus, but that didn't go so well either.

Apparently the creator was so wise as to provide his final and perfect revelation to a man who was illiterate first of all and couldn't even transcribe his own revelations, but did so in a language that apparently I need a decade of schooling to even hope to accurately decipher. Kind of shoddy work for a God who is apparently omniscient and saw the future of confusion and misinterpretation, not to mention division, that handing down a revelation in such a convoluted way would bring about. Kind of a shitty thing to do to your children who you supposedly love and want the best for.

And don't think I am just singling out Islam because followers of Christianity may not have the "15 rules" yet they still manage to do the exact same routine: Keep the good and metaphor/contextualize/interpret the bad. As does every religion including Mormonism and Scientology. Some do it more convincingly that the rest mostly due to being more ancient than the others but when you step back you begin to see that they're all equal and equivalent glimpses of the untrue.
 
Out of curiosity, you have any links on Shia Muslims I can read up on? What they are, what are their beliefs, what laws do they follow, etc. Please no wikilinks since it's not a valid source per maninthemirror.
JK wikilinks are fine.

I can help you a bit.

Wikipedia for the basic basic rundown, but I'll try to give as much as I can in regards to twelver shias (the main branch), and might be able to give you more regarding the shia muslim theology after the 12 imams

-Before the Prophet died, Shias believe an event known as Ghadeer occurred right after Hajj where the Prophet appointed his cousin Ali ibn Abu Talib as his successor. Imam Ali is the first of the Shia Imams

Note: Do think Imams=Prophets. Two different matters

Following the prophets death, Abu Bakr was declared 1st Caliph/ruler of the Muslims, the issue that split the two sides. Shia means follower, as in the followers of Ali.

Fast forward many years to the beginning of the Umayyad Empire after its founder died and had violated a treaty and precedent to not name his son the next ruler. The new ruler, Yazid, wanted allegiance from a specific number of influential muslims, including Imam Ali's 2nd son, the Prophet's grandson through his mother, Fatima, and the 3rd Imam for Shias (all the same person) Imam Hussain. He fought against the Umayyad Empire in what is called the tragedy of Karbala where he and 72 of his closest companions were killed in modern day Karbala, Iraq. The prophet's family was taken in chains to Damscus and after a long period of time were finally released.

Many historians essentially consider this the main breaking point where Shias began to form their own sect. The importance here was the idea that the prophet's grandson (1 of 2, the other being the 2nd Imam) had been killed by the Umayyads only ~ half a century after his death.

A major aspect for shias is this persecution. The 1st Imam was assassinated while praying. The 3rd died fighting in the tragedy of Karbala. All the others, save the 12th, were poisoned. The 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th spent large portions of their life in prison.
Shias believe the 12th Imam, Imam Mehdi, shortly after his father's death, went into occultation, first a minor occultation, where overall 4 people stayed in direct contact with him, and then a major occultation, where shias believe he is still alive on the Earth and is the Mahdi/Messiah.

A very important person to the development of the Shia thought and theologt was the 6th Imam, Imam Jafar as Sadiq. He essentially, due to instability in the region thanks to the weakening Umayyad Empire, was able to speak more freely and codified many major aspects of Shia Islam, making the largest Shia school of thought in the Ja'fari School of Thought, which the vast majority of Shias follow today.

This school of thought is split into two main branches, which are what is still relevant for shia beliefs today.

-The first of these are the Akhbari Shias, who don't believe in modern ijtihad, or independent reasoning. Ijtihad basically is when religious scholars will look at the traditions of the Prophet and imams, along with Qu'ran itself (primarily actually) to derive laws and regulations for modern developments. As such, they don't agree with the concept of a marja, which I'll explain next. Akhbaris are mostly a minor group today

Wikipedia said:
Today it is found primarily in the Basra area of southern Iraq (where they form the majority in many districts) although no longer in the city. They are also found in the island nation of Bahrain, Hyderabad, India and different cities of Pakistan[5] Karachi, Sehwan, Hyderabad, Lahore, Faisalabad(Lylpur), Chakwaal, Gojar Khan [6] with reportedly "only a handful of Shi'i ulema" remaining Akhbari "to the present day.".

-The major group here, and the part of this post that if anywhere else, you should pay attention to are the Usuli Shias. They believe that in the absence of the direct presence of the Imam, scholars must use ijtihad to derive solutions for problems regarding Muslims today. These problems can range from how to pray on a plane to how how to pay one's khums, a mandatory tax on 20% of your savings.

However, not any scholar can make a ruling on this. There are two main shia religious schools: 1 in Qom, Iran, and 1 in Najaf, Iraq. There are other, smaller ones, in cities such as Mashad, Iran, Karbala Iraq, and Damascus, Syria. Students go there to train, and there are a number of positions. From a simple student it takes ~7-10 years to just be allowed to wear the turban designating you as a scholar, and there is still far more studying. I don't remember the entire process, but the status of Ayatullah, which you may have heard of before, is when you are allowed to make ruling for yourself and are what is called a mujtahid. I forget the process from there to becoming a marja, or grand ayatullah, where you are allowed to make rulings, fatwa, mandatory precautions, etc (there are major differences) for those who follow you. Nevertheless, the whole process is a very long one, not anybody can go and make a fatwa, especially for shia muslims, as this process is generally not challenged if you believe in marjas.

Usuli Shia Muslims believe that when someone becomes of age, they have to pick a marja that they follow based on who, by their research, is the most knowledgeable. The marja with the largest followers is Ayatullah Ali Sistani, who is Najaf, Iraq. When it comes to politics, I don't know his exact position, but he hasn't visibly interfered many times, the two ones coming to mind being when he strongly strongly encouraged all the shia muslims of Iraq to vote and last years when he issued a jihad against ISIS for shia muslim men (who followed him as their marja) in Iraq (only).

Another major theory that I should mention for its influence is Wilayat-al-Faqih, or Guardianship of the Jurists. It was formulated by Ayatullah Khomeini (the one who led the Iranian Revolution) and it states that in the absence of direct contact with the Imam, there must be a singular authority in regards to the political leadership of Islam. This faqih is supposed to come from a highly religious background. Most ayatullahs or marjas have some statement of this theory. The shias that accept it regard Ayatullah Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, as the current faqih. The faqih always holds that title. Note this does not mean they follow that person as their marja.

A major result that comes out of this all is that the Shia sect of Islam is more centralized and has more of a structure (as I understand). There is less of what some other Muslims in the thread were talking about in how people would state any random scholar could at times get away with forming a band of people who believe him, rather than regard the scholars at, say, Al-Azhar University. If I'm off anywhere please feel free to correct me, don;t have as much understanding on this subject. Not to say that there aren't designated Shia terrorist groups, not at all.

On Azih's specific case, I understand, coming from a Shia family too, as Shias are often the primary targets of ISIS. In fact, while all the shias I know consider sunnis muslims, and as far as I know the major marja have all highly highly discouraged/made haram spreading disunity between the two sects, many shias won't consider adherents of wahabbism, salafism, and people in groups such as ISIS muslim whatsoever.

Edit: I'm from a Shia Muslim family. My community is one of these ISIS type bastards favourite god damn targets to be killed. It's fucking frustrating to have outsiders chime in "Ayup, them people are serious about their faith, unlike you" and have to defend myself against that and have to establish my god damn credentials as a serious non cafeteria/cotton candy Muslim when what I should be doing is debunking these Al-Qaeda/Wahhabi inspired murderers.
Fuck it, I'll just go with what he said.

You want to know what ISIS wants? The recognition by other Muslims that they are Muslims and the legitimate caliphs
 
Just take a look at the Obama speech thread to see how many Gaffers are adamant in the point of view that ISIS/Al-Qaeda types are the most muslimy muslims that it's possible for muslimy muslims to be. And this is Neogaf. Imagine how much worse it is in other places. That's why I'm taking the hardline stance against this full on bullshit in this thread. It makes it impossible to have a conversation about those bastards if I first have to attempt (and fail) at establishing myself as a 'real' (not nominal, not cotton candy) non-terrorist Muslim.

You still didn't reply to me earlier post in this thread.

Im getting sick of seeing the same bullshit rhetoric posted, you're totally missing the point.

It has nada,zilch fuck all to do with being more or less Muslim than each other.

You're both Muslims, who interpret Islam in different ways. That's all there is to it.

If anyone is full of bullshit it's yourself by picking out parts of posts which you've done with all of mine to twist and suit your stance.

Until you and other 'moderate Muslims' can accept that ISIS are Muslim, that ISIS and all of their sympathisers are acting on literal readings of the Koran and are a fucking plague which should be wiped off the face of the earth by all and any means necessary then we will never see eye to eye.

The Koran when pressured and questioned falls apart. You're not allowed to question the Koran because when you do you see the holes and misconceptions appear.

Its actually quite disappointing that someone who seems like a decent guy from your posts has been so brainwashed by a book whereby you let your book do the thinking for you.

I'm done.
 
Obama this Obama that. Vox did a piece, selected quotes:

Vox said:
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.
 
If the Arab world was as Secular as the West would the geopolitical and historical oppression have caused Secular terrorist groups as violent as ISIS to pop up? Probably not right. Islam definitely has a part to play.
 
I agree with you yes, if the Middle East was Christian majority and Europe was Muslim majority, and the development of both regions went the same way, then we'd be probably talking about CSIS.

Y'know, i'll say one thing about this thread, its motivated me to learn more.

My buddy lent me his bible, gonna read through it! After that hopefully I can get someone jewish to give me some insight too at some point.
 
The thing about Islam is that it has clauses which clarifies what to follow when there's a contradiction, that is the "canon" of Islam when there's a contradiction is that the later verse is supposed to be taken as fact. This is a huge issue that doesn't exist in other religions, which is how we can have Christians okay with homosexuality and other Christians adamantly opposed to it and both could technically be "correct" (not politically but religiously) Because the Bible says to love your neighbor no matter what but also says to stone homosexuals to death. In this case, either point of view is "correct" because there's a contradiction and it is up to the reader to decide what is right for him or her. In Islam when it says to love your neighbor as in the verses with Mohammad in Mecca, but later verses says to kill apostates whenever you see them, I can't fully put the blame on the consciousness of the "misinterpreters" as some call them when it matter-of-factly tells Muslims that it is canon to kill apostates and do all the other "sword" verses as it was in Medina. I don't know many Muslims that look at the Hadith as being irrelevant. It's the basis of Shariah law and resulted in the downward spiral of Islamic interpretations which allowed terrorists to justify their actions and even more so, truly believe they're doing right by their religion.

One reason a lot of these beliefs happen in the middle east is because of the culture. Of the billions of Muslims, the educated ones aren't blowing themselves and others to the sky, it's mostly the jobless, uneducated who want something to belong to, who have these feelings of Islam and are malleable in their mindset and have these radical Imams basically brainwash them with some hard-to-argue and convincing dogmas. Remember it the Taliban was created because all these children had their parents die during the Afghanistan war vs the soviets and Mullah Omar took all these orphans and brainwashed them in Madrassas

Islam is a great religion and if I was religious it is the religion I would choose to belong to. I have a lot of Muslim friends and they are all very good people. It just sucks to see it being thrown into the shithole since 9/11, despite some flaws in the religion. But no religion is perfect. I was born Jewish and studying the Old Testament is one of the reasons I'm an agnostic atheist.
 
I don't think the issue of abrogation is what causes Islam to be more problematic than Christianity. It's plain and simply a historical and societal thing. Christian institutions in the West were forced, kicking and screaming, to conform to the trends of the Enlightenment era onwards. In most Muslim majority countries the Islamic institutions are still tolerated and not forced to conform to modern trends (with the usual exceptions of the Turkic countries, Balkan countries, Tatarstan of Russia etc.). At the core that's the difference, not textual issues.

One reason a lot of these beliefs happen in the middle east is because of the culture. Of the billions of Muslims, the educated ones aren't blowing themselves and others to the sky, it's mostly the jobless, uneducated who want something to belong to, who have these feelings of Islam and are malleable in their mindset and have these radical Imams basically brainwash them with some hard-to-argue and convincing dogmas.

I also think ISIS and such are Islam's equivalent of White Nationalist movements in the West. It's racism in the form of religious bigotry.
 
In most Muslim majority countries the Islamic institutions are still tolerated and not forced to conform to modern trends
Not really, Traditional Islamic law (as in the four main schools of Sunni law) does not condone ISIS type behavior at all. The kind of philosophy that ISIS types follow have their roots in the seventeenth and eighteenth century reformers. Rashid Rida and Muhammad Ibn abd Al-Wahhab (the guys who define ISIS, Al-Qaeda type ideology) broke from traditional Sunni Islam really hard. That nuance and historical truth is completely lost as people rush to and get wedded to a narrative of Islam 'always being this way'. Bringing it up gets me accused of being an apologist.
 
Well yes, the goalposts have moved from "the Quran instructs the believer to kill infidel!" to "Only God should be the one doing it!". If you originally started off with "I understand why the Prophet engaged in warfare, but I don't understand why God himself couldn't just send a plague or something", we will be having a vastly different coversation. The first point, as I made abundantly clear, is within the confines of a specific treaty (or treaties, to be more precise). I don't really need to explain to you all this. You are smarter than ISIS. For them, context does not matter. I explained very clearly, that it is not an excuse to kill out of desire, but a reason bound by laws and trust. I also explained to you using an example of saying "US has a directive to kill", but taken within the framework of a military engagement, it then becomes "US has a directive to kill/capture the enemies that broke the truce/declared a war", it is not as inflammatory. You refuse to afford the same framework of context sensitive dimensions to this data, and instead focus on the words "kill". Yes, the words are there. Yes the words are specific. But the words are narrating a contextual scenario as it was happening! It is language 101, and ISIS has flunked it rather spectacularly. The Quran took over a period of 23 years to be completed, so of course it encompassed everything from inheritance rights to warfare, as it is Arabia in the Iron age we're dealing with. Just because the extremists do not have reading comprehension skills, should not mean the texts should have been written in a children's storybook level, because it's not the text's fault that there are neanderthals that cannot apply thinking skills.

Well, the Quran does say that it is Allah who is issuing the judgement for the polytheists that broke the truce, not Muhammad. All the directives, which you quoted in Chapter 9, are supposedly from Allah. There is not one singular place where Muhammad interjects and says "lets do y". I'm sure you don't actually believe it's Allah who is saying all that, but simply Muhammad making stuff up. Which is why I afforded you the latitude to ignore the theology, but if you want to bring the theology, then you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say, God ordered David to go DESTROY the Amalekites is different than God ordering Muhammad to attack the Tribes that broke the truce. But you probably also overlooked my statement, where I said that Muslims do not believe the stories in bible are 100% true. That leaves some leeway to what the old prophets, including Jesus, taught, said and did. With that being said, I already explained that Jesus' ministry lasted a few years, and he did not have any state to run, treaties to fulfill or an army to lead. Neither was he in charge of tribes quabbling with each other. Muslims believe, that Jesus was only sent to Jews, and had a specific message for them. He did not come to unite everyone, nor prosleytize to the pagans, unlike Muhammad, which Muslims believe was sent for everyone. Jesus' message did include statements such as the one of the sword I mentioned, and also that he came to uphold the Mosaic law, and also that his message will divide families. Yes, Muslims believe Jesus will return. But do you know why? To lead an army. Read up on Islamic apocrypha.

I'm not being disingenuous, or being ignorant purposefully at all. You started the discussion with out of context verses. I merely provided the context. How is that disingenuous. If there was any "disingenuity", it was from you, who said the context about the "treaty" does not matter, and you scurried quickly to find translations that used a synonym for the word Treaty (failing to realize that the underlying Arabic language used the word for making an agreement with someone, and the fact that all Quranic tafsirs understood this point when this chapter was mentioned). The fact that there are extremists quoting verses out of context is not a slight against the texts, but a remark against their understanding. They do not have the correct understanding, and instead of blaming them for their lack of reasoning, you want to blame the texts. It's an illogical, ridiculous and fallacious claim.

No, the goal post have not moved a single inch. You simply have not comprehended what I have written since post 1 in this thread. You can repeat that they have moved, but they have not changed at all, in any way.

Simple comprehension using your own words might help:

1) I never said this:
"the Quran instructs the believer to kill infidel!" to "Only God should be the one doing it!"

2) I did say this:
(The problem is when) "the Quran instructs the believer to kill infidel!" because "Only God should be the one doing it!"

I have stated this from post 1. Period.
I have said this is the loophole that allows these groups to use the license to kill that exist in the quran.

Please try to comprehend disconnect of philosophy between a prophet/Mohammed directly telling his followers to kill, than a prophet/deity doing the killing and judgement. We always expect God to kill, not directives to all followers to kill. This is very simple concept, and I can only guess that doctrine would not let someone clearly see the idea.


=================
Chapter 2 191-193
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.

Verse:192
Abdul Daryabadi : Then if they desist, then verily Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Verse:193
Abdul Daryabadi : And fight them until there be no more temptation, and their obedience be wholly unto Allah. So if they desist, then there is to be no violence save against the wrong-doers.
=================



Maybe this is about a treaty? Guess what, it does not matter.

The point is, it does not matter the why, it is the fact that it does, by way of sacred text, give excuse to kill to followers directly. Again, giving me why we are told to kill does not change the fact that we are told to kill for a reason. This is what is being used for the groups to rationalize. This is what is being used by the fringe scholars to license the killing. Explaining it away, while still condoning it, lets the literal translation to kill live on.

Also, is it Allah speaking to Mohammad or the angel Gabriel? So is Mohammed the messenger to Gabriel, who is the messenger of Allah? You seemed to have moved the goal post away from Mohammad to:
All the directives, which you quoted in Chapter 9, are supposedly from Allah
. Seems inconsistent, but it still does not matter, as the directives to kill are directly there, and presented as directions to followers.

Yes, Muslims believe Jesus will return. But do you know why? To lead an army. Read up on Islamic apocrypha
Also, yes, I know the story of Jesus' return. I mentioned the idea of judgement on his return in the post your responded to... :/

And yeah, if you have not read the texts of the various religions, I can understand why your conclusion is that the philosophy of Jesus is "one of the sword." Just realize you have left out a lot of education about the story and philosophy, enough such that you have missed the gist of the philosophy and story. Using the excuse that "well muslims do not believe the bible stuff 100%", as an excuse not to read about it, just short changes your knowledge of the ideas and philosophies. These books, like all books, do not need scholars to understand them. They are all honestly fairly simple stories, even if they have huge, deep and life changing meaning.

Also, the second coming story of Jesus that Jews, Christiians and Muslims believe is not a new story. It is a story that existed before the quran, and before the new testament. It is very similar to the same story in Hinduism and the final manifestation of Vishnu (God) as Kalki. You know, Kalki comes down on a white horse with a blazing sword to destroy the filth and bring the new order.

In any case, I do not want to make this a confrontational thing.
I just believe the more self reflection about doctrines and beliefs, the better. I think people should have the right to do so, and that it can be helpful. I also like to believe there are pieces of philosophy from all religious texts that have value and can be meaningful.
 
Both, depending on which bit of my posts you are referring to.
But you don't even have any quotes to back up what you're saying about what they're saying. I do. If you really think "politically correct, embarrassed, cotton candy view not aware of historical legal requirements of the religion" isn't casting moderates as less faithful muslim then I have no idea what words would.

Well, now there are two things that need clarification:

[1] So in countries where there are harsh and barbaric punishments for apostasy and adultery and the like, do you agree with these punishments?

[2] Regardless of whatever earthly punishment is or isn't given, the Quran states that the punishment for apostasy is eternal damnation in Hell. Do you agree with this?
1. I've said I don't believe there is any punishment for apostasy in Islam. For adultery if the Quranic principles are followed than the lashing punishments would almost never actually happen due to the absurdly high standard of proof required so I'd be fine with that. Saudi/Afghanistan etc don't hold to those standards.

2. I'm not god and it's not my place to judge what God may or may not decide to do in the afterlife.(This stance makes judgmental religious people incredibly hard for me to understand.)

It has nada,zilch fuck all to do with being more or less Muslim than each other.
If you don't think ISIS is more Islamic than I am then great I'm not speaking about you. But plenty of other commenters do exactly that and call moderates "nominal, not serious, cotton candy" muslims. They are who am I speaking against. It's not about what you think. It's about what they say.

Edit: Here's a very recent example from the Obama thread

SyenceLabb said:
Peaceful (moderate) Muslims are so inclined DESPITE their religion, not because of it.

So I'm peaceful and moderate despite my faith. Saying that my peaceful and moderate views are me breaking from Islam. The very fact that I'm peaceful and moderate is proof that I'm not as Muslim as ISIS type crazies. I have no idea why you're fighting my commentary on these very clear and obvious statements so hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom