Muslim Is NOT Isis

[Nightfall_]

Something is pissing me off. To be exact, The Paris attack is pissing me off. Not because it got attacked (although that is one reason), no, I'm pissed off because everyone now thinks that Muslim=Isis which is complete b-s. Muslim is a religion and Isis is a religion, but is NOT the same as Muslim. Its annoying me because there are some amazing Muslim girls at my school who are 13 years old and everyone is saying that they're Isis and there gonna blow everyone up. So, my great debate topic is weather we should be taking out our rage of the Paris attack on the Muslim community or weather we should be focusing on Isis. I for one think we should souly focus on Isis as this is them. Anyway, don't be disrespectful. Understand not everyone shares your opinion and just because someone says it should be taken out on one, doesn't mean you have to go to war with them.

Thanks,

[Jinglebottom]

That's rude. I don't like the way they treat each other (Sunni-Shiites feud) but that's not enough to call them terrorists.

[Stronk Serb]

ISIS are Muslims, but not all Muslims are ISIS.

[CharlieHorse]

ISIS are Muslims, but not all Muslims are ISIS.

just like squares and rectangles.

[Stronk Serb]

just like squares and rectangles.

Exactly.

[sqishy]

I agree - ISIL/ISIS/etc has destroyed mosques and does so much unique damage that it is simply wrong to associate them with Islam, because there's so much difference going on. It is extremism which is using a religion it thinks it is part of; they violate way too many defintions/practices of Islam. There is very much controversy on their name in itself, as they use 'Islamic'. I'm personally the same, and will be glad to use a name that does not include it. Hopefully one is around.
So, though they seem hell-bent on taking their ideas from Islam, they are really too outlying to be part of it. It is naive to think they are really Islamic at all. Their statement that claims responsibility for the Paris events is not a great statement either; it is not made of much content, moreso just lots of malevolent-sounding wording and vague/contradictory phrases.

[Stronk Serb]

I agree - ISIL/ISIS/etc has destroyed mosques and does so much unique damage that it is simply wrong to associate them with Islam, because there's so much difference going on. It is extremism which is using a religion it thinks it is part of; they violate way too many defintions/practices of Islam. There is very much controversy on their name in itself, as they use 'Islamic'. I'm personally the same, and will be glad to use a name that does not include it. Hopefully one is around.
So, though they seem hell-bent on taking their ideas from Islam, they are really too outlying to be part of it. It is naive to think they are really Islamic at all. Their statement that claims responsibility for the Paris events is not a great statement either; it is not made of much content, moreso just lots of malevolent-sounding wording and vague/contradictory phrases.

The way I see it, they destroyed mosques belonging to other Muslim sects which they see as false. They claim to be Muslims and adhere to the Muslim holy book, the Quran. They are Muslims.

[Uniquemind]

Excuse me but this will be a long post.

The Islamic community needs to do a much better job of educating and explaining why their religion/faith's core message seems to be fractured, when at the same time the premise of the faith is that their holy book, is written in 1 cohesive unchanging language without translation.

They need to explain why and how they differ from Isis/Isil, and why it appears lines and context of some of their scriptures seem to justify the horrendous acts perpetrated by the extremists.

There are some Islamic cultural details that clash with modern day philosophies of "free speech" limiting jokes and puns of their prophet, and if done, retribution is justified....like this needs explanation of why that line of their scripture exists when it seems like a forced concept that is in no way in-line with a moderate tone.

They have to explain why a double standard existed historically with the prophet's wives not being able to remarry after his death. Why he got special treatment versus others, why he married and had sex with a 9 year old, which most modern Muslims in the western world don't practice or feel are acceptable.

So there are distinctions and rational explanations the Islamic community owes non-Islamic people and communities clear-cut and rational reasons for all the weird fringe edges of the faith which are easily distorted and used for extremist propaganda.

There can be no dodging of the questions, and there can be no magical talk or explanations about in an ideal world Islam means ___, Islam has to deal with the world as it is and as humans behave and emote.

The problem I have with all faiths is that their credibility is built on using logical fallacies to justify concepts via a game of observe and connect-the-dots, which weak causation at best.

[phuckphace]

yeah the thing about religion is that most of those who ascribe to it view only their own specific sect as "the true version" and everyone else is a heretic. I can't count the number of times I've heard Protestants claim that Catholicism is a "cult" ("they worship Mary!!") and most Prots will even dump on other Prot sects over very minor interpretational disagreements.

in conclusion, I'd say it's erroneous to claim that ISIS isn't a sect of Islam going off the fact that they've blown up mosques. in actuality they're zealots.

[Uniquemind]

yeah the thing about religion is that most of those who ascribe to it view only their own specific sect as "the true version" and everyone else is a heretic. I can't count the number of times I've heard Protestants claim that Catholicism is a "cult" ("they worship Mary!!") and most Prots will even dump on other Prot sects over very minor interpretational disagreements.

in conclusion, I'd say it's erroneous to claim that ISIS isn't a sect of Islam going off the fact that they've blown up mosques. in actuality they're zealots.

That too.

[Judean Zealot]

I will say this. Mainstream Sunnis do need to be less ambiguous in their rejection of Salafism, if they don't wish to be lumped together with their more violent coreligionists.

[sqishy]

The way I see it, they destroyed mosques belonging to other Muslim sects which they see as false. They claim to be Muslims and adhere to the Muslim holy book, the Quran. They are Muslims.

By their own definitions, they are yes. However, they are violating so many things present in the Quran that they are, at most, extremist muslim emulators in certain areas. I have never heard of the Quran saying that other holy places of worship should be destroyed because they do not agree with your views. It is contradictory and more than just exceptions to their supposed adherence to the book and religion.

At the same time, I question how much prodestants and catholics actually were christian, by how much trouble went on in Northern Ireland. With the view that religions can have denominations/sects/etc which are hypocritical with double standards, I agree that ISIL/etc is a notable extreme form of Islam. Using some metaphor, ISIL/etc is as representative of Islam as the peaks of the Himalayas are representative of surface conditions on Earth. This can be extended to other religions, I am sure.

I stand by what I said at first, because exceptions should be seen as such, more than as a natural part of a religion. Assume initially the (yes, maybe naive) view that the religion works as it is theoretically ideally meant to. Do not have prejudice.

[Porpoise101]

I equate IS with khawarjites of the 8th century which were an extreme sect that branched out from Islam. I don't equate ISIS with Islam but it does stem from Wahhabi ideology which should also be purged.

[Uniquemind]

By their own definitions, they are yes. However, they are violating so many things present in the Quran that they are, at most, extremist muslim emulators in certain areas. I have never heard of the Quran saying that other holy places of worship should be destroyed because they do not agree with your views. It is contradictory and more than just exceptions to their supposed adherence to the book and religion.

At the same time, I question how much prodestants and catholics actually were christian, by how much trouble went on in Northern Ireland. With the view that religions can have denominations/sects/etc which are hypocritical with double standards, I agree that ISIL/etc is a notable extreme form of Islam. Using some metaphor, ISIL/etc is as representative of Islam as the peaks of the Himalayas are representative of surface conditions on Earth. This can be extended to other religions, I am sure.

I stand by what I said at first, because exceptions should be seen as such, more than as a natural part of a religion. Assume initially the (yes, maybe naive) view that the religion works as it is theoretically ideally meant to. Do not have prejudice.



Keep in mind though that Islam robs women of independence and many rights which we are accustomed to in the west. And even if not violent like Isis/Isil, all sects throw out a lot of control over women.

[mattsmith48]

Something is pissing me off. To be exact, The Paris attack is pissing me off. Not because it got attacked (although that is one reason), no, I'm pissed off because everyone now thinks that Muslim=Isis which is complete b-s. Muslim is a religion and Isis is a religion, but is NOT the same as Muslim. Its annoying me because there are some amazing Muslim girls at my school who are 13 years old and everyone is saying that they're Isis and there gonna blow everyone up. So, my great debate topic is weather we should be taking out our rage of the Paris attack on the Muslim community or weather we should be focusing on Isis. I for one think we should souly focus on Isis as this is them. Anyway, don't be disrespectful. Understand not everyone shares your opinion and just because someone says it should be taken out on one, doesn't mean you have to go to war with them.

Thanks,

ISIS are Muslim Your right not all Muslim are ISIS. But the religion is kinda part of the problem, most terrorism done in the world today are either done by Muslims the rest of the terrorism is done by stupid countries like the US and European countries by fighting terrorism with terrorism.

Other Religion are not better then Muslim Ive said multiple times if planes were around in the 1700's Christians would have slam them into buildings too, they don't do it now because 99% of Christians are not radical and don't kill all the gays like the bible tell them to do, one of the reason is they wouldn't be any priest left :lol:

[COLOR="Yellow"]
By their own definitions, they are yes. However, they are violating so many things present in the Quran that they are, at most, extremist muslim emulators in certain areas. I have never heard of the Quran saying that other holy places of worship should be destroyed because they do not agree with your views. It is contradictory and more than just exceptions to their supposed adherence to the book and religion.
]

It says in the Quran kill all the infidels, IMO destroying their place of worship is part of that

[Jinglebottom]

Oh, but ISIS kills in the name of "Allah" so they must be doing the right thing amirite?

[mattsmith48]

Oh, but ISIS kills in the name of "Allah" so they must be doing the right thing amirite?

They are good Muslim they actually follow the Quran

[pascaldesla]

You are right, it is not the same

[Jinglebottom]

They are good Muslim they actually follow the Quran
Woah wait, so does the Quran actually encourage the beheading of all the "infidels"? Then why are ISIS attacking Shia Muslims? Religion is weird. Do the Sunnis view them as apostates or something?

[sqishy]

It says in the Quran kill all the infidels, IMO destroying their place of worship is part of that

True, true. At the same time, peace is brought up a lot in the Quran. Like the bible, it is no self-consistent book by any means.
Taking it all literally is one fast track to extremist fundamentalism.

[mattsmith48]

Woah wait, so does the Quran actually encourage the beheading of all the "infidels"? Then why are ISIS attacking Shia Muslims? Religion is weird. Do the Sunnis view them as apostates or something?

For ISIS an infidel can mean believing only 1 or 2 different thing then them

[Pat the Bunny]

I hate it that every time there's a terrorist attack asshole's use it as a vehicle to spread their racism.

[Judean Zealot]

Woah wait, so does the Quran actually encourage the beheading of all the "infidels"? Then why are ISIS attacking Shia Muslims? Religion is weird. Do the Sunnis view them as apostates or something?

Well to be quite fair, the idea that Shi'ites are heretics seems fairly prevalent within Sunni Islam.

[Jinglebottom]

Well to be quite fair, the idea that Shi'ites are heretics seems fairly prevalent within Sunni Islam.
Lol trust me I see it every day. It's always each side making fun of the other's traditions/beliefs. Though oddly they seem to have no issue with the Druze and Christian communities, but have a whole lot of beef against each other. Still find it weird but I guess I'll never know since I'm excluded from their religious talks.

[Judean Zealot]

Lol trust me I see it every day. It's always each side making fun of the other's traditions/beliefs. Though oddly they seem to have no issue with the Druze and Christian communities, but have a whole lot of beef against each other. Still find it weird but I guess I'll never know since I'm excluded from their religious talks.

Generally speaking, a religion will have more beef with those sects that they see as forgeries of their own religion than on religions that make no claim to their name. I think the reason is pretty clear- while a completely foreign religion disagrees outright, a closer religion poses more of a threat. It's like myself: I really don't care if I have to listen to somebody talk about Islam or Buddhism, but whenever I hear about Reform or Conservative "Judaism" my blood boils.

[Miserabilia]

Muslim isn't terrorist.

Unlike what the very right wing have been shouting, not "most terrorist are muslims".

At this moment in time, in the west, muslim terrorist are the ones we are confronted with the most.
They are a very specific branch of muslim who choose to interpet their faith in this way.
The majority of muslims are peaceful normal people.

That said, I think religion nowadays is mostly retarded, and the irony of the hashtag #prayforparis is almost hilarious.

[Jinglebottom]

Generally speaking, a religion will have more beef with those sects that they see as forgeries of their own religion than on religions that make no claim to their name. I think the reason is pretty clear- while a completely foreign religion disagrees outright, a closer religion poses more of a threat. It's like myself: I really don't care if I have to listen to somebody talk about Islam or Buddhism, but whenever I hear about Reform or Conservative "Judaism" my blood boils.
Makes sense. But I still don't think it warrants the constant attacks between both sects (and I'm not even talking about ISIS right now).

[Judean Zealot]

That said, I think religion nowadays is mostly retarded, and the irony of the hashtag #prayforparis is almost hilarious.

That said, I think most modern critics of religion are retarded. Don't you think you should actually know What you're talking about when you're writing off the majority of the world?

[Miserabilia]

That said, I think most modern critics of religion are retarded. Don't you think you should actually know What you're talking about when you're writing off the majority of the world?

Should I know anything when I'm literaly stating my opinion?
No, it's just my opinion.
I"m not even being philosophical here.

[Porpoise101]

Should I know anything when I'm literaly stating my opinion?
No, it's just my opinion.
I"m not even being philosophical here.
You should probably know at least something when you say something with that much gravity...

[Falcons_11]

What I don't understand is why some Muslims believe they have to murder other religions like Christians, Jews, and other sects within Islam too in order to get to their heaven. This idea is totally wrong and in the modern era should be condemned as genocide. Everyone has a human right to freedom and dignity. They should not be murdered just becuz they belong to a different faith. Am I so naive to think like this? Why hasn't leaders in the Islamic world spoken out against what some Muslims (Isis and others) are doing? Just imagine if the Pope would come out and preach another Crusade and tell Christians that they will go to heaven if they murder Muslims. They would be a worldwide outcry to have him tried for war crimes or something similar.

[Judean Zealot]

I"m not even being philosophical here.

So I've noticed.

[Jinglebottom]

What I don't understand is why some Muslims believe they have to murder other religions like Christians, Jews, and other sects within Islam too in order to get to their heaven. This idea is totally wrong and in the modern era should be condemned as genocide. Everyone has a human right to freedom and dignity. They should not be murdered just becuz they belong to a different faith. Am I so naive to think like this? Why hasn't leaders in the Islamic world spoken out against what some Muslims (Isis and others) are doing? Just imagine if the Pope would come out and preach another Crusade and tell Christians that they will go to heaven if they murder Muslims. They would be a worldwide outcry to have him tried for war crimes or something similar.
According to some Islamic extremists, blowing yourself up gets you 72 virgins in Heaven. (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/72-virgins-are-waiting-for-me-in-heaven-so-why-i-should-prefer-only-one-here)

[Arkansasguy]

Something is pissing me off. To be exact, The Paris attack is pissing me off. Not because it got attacked (although that is one reason), no, I'm pissed off because everyone now thinks that Muslim=Isis which is complete b-s. Muslim is a religion and Isis is a religion, but is NOT the same as Muslim. Its annoying me because there are some amazing Muslim girls at my school who are 13 years old and everyone is saying that they're Isis and there gonna blow everyone up. So, my great debate topic is weather we should be taking out our rage of the Paris attack on the Muslim community or weather we should be focusing on Isis. I for one think we should souly focus on Isis as this is them. Anyway, don't be disrespectful. Understand not everyone shares your opinion and just because someone says it should be taken out on one, doesn't mean you have to go to war with them.

Thanks,

What has ISIS done that Muhammed did not do?

I will grant that most Muslims are substantially better than their "Prophet".

[Sir Suomi]

Regardless of what they call themselves, all I want to see is their heads on a pike. Allah won't have enough virgins for the amount we're going to send up there.

[mattsmith48]

Regardless of what they call themselves, all I want to see is their heads on a pike. Allah won't have enough virgins for the amount we're going to send up there.

I think Allah ran out of virgins a long time ago

[Sheilae]

ISIS are Muslims, but not all Muslims are ISIS.
No ISIS CANT be muslims. Because everything they do and say has nothing to do with Muslims their religion.

[phuckphace]

Allah won't have enough virgins for the amount we're going to send up there.

virgin shortage due to the refugee crisis

[Stronk Serb]

No ISIS CANT be muslims. Because everything they do and say has nothing to do with Muslims their religion.

It does, they follow the tenets of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, pray in mosques and claim themselves are Muslims.

[Sheilae]

It does, they follow the tenets of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, pray in mosques and claim themselves are Muslims.
Just because they claim they are Muslims doesnt mean that they ARE. I do not consider anyone who uses religion in this kind of way religious. I've never read the Quran; but I know that there is no holy book that tells to kill innocent people.

[Bontigo Papi .]

ISIS is a religion ?

Uh, I don't think so. ISIS is a group of militrants who are spread around Iran and most other countries. Muslim's are not all ISIS, and just because you're Muslim, doesn't make you a member of ISIS, just as being gay doesn't make God hate you.

Even if ISIS was a religion, who do they pray to? The bomb gods? Shit is messed up and you can assure yourself that this aint about religious reasons.

[Left Now]

Well,well.Once again I was away for a period of time and once again VT is filled with statements without evidence to support them.

[phuckphace]

http://i.imgur.com/bkr02yU.jpg

[Stronk Serb]

Just because they claim they are Muslims doesnt mean that they ARE. I do not consider anyone who uses religion in this kind of way religious. I've never read the Quran; but I know that there is no holy book that tells to kill innocent people.

Well, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) does and the Quran do. Just because of the fact that the rest of the Muslim world gave up these primitive practices doesn't mean they we're not in their beliefs once in a while.

[Jinglebottom]

Well, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) does and the Quran do.
Some of the verses in these books are actually really homicidal and disturbing. Something about striking off the disbelievers' heads and what not. I guess that's what ISIS is using to justify its repulsive crimes. Thankfully, not many people seem to follow that verse nowadays, for some reason . . .

[mattsmith48]

I know that there is no holy book that tells to kill innocent people.

Exodus 31:15 - For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

[Uniquemind]

Some of the verses in these books are actually really homicidal and disturbing. Something about striking off the disbelievers' heads and what not. I guess that's what ISIS is using to justify its repulsive crimes. Thankfully, not many people seem to follow that verse nowadays, for some reason . . .

That "reason" is what the extremists use as their rationale for why their version of Islam is more correct and true that other interpretations of it. They're wrong of course, but hopefully you see the circular logic of this problem.




Well, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) does and the Quran do. Just because of the fact that the rest of the Muslim world gave up these primitive practices doesn't mean they we're not in their beliefs once in a while.

New Testament has that too, except they tend to be only a few lines of scripture with the same message, until you get to Revelation, then God is like OT God again, because it's the same God.

I will say that when I confront pastors, few want to talk about Revelation so I'm not surprised people are uneducated about it.

[Left Now]

Some of the verses in these books are actually really homicidal and disturbing. Something about striking off the disbelievers' heads and what not. I guess that's what ISIS is using to justify its repulsive crimes. Thankfully, not many people seem to follow that verse nowadays, for some reason . . .

A pity ISIS cannot read the Quran themselves.Striking off the disbelievers' head verse had lots of related verses before it which makes it completely clear that it is related to "Battlefield Matters" not "Normal Matters".

How can they call themselves Muslims if they agree with one part "...Striking off the disbelievers' head...",but not agree with the other part "...Only fight them if they want to fight you..." or "...Fight them but do not transgress..." or "...If they stopped their aggression,prepare to make peace..." or "...There is not force in accepting religion..." ?

I remember that they have killed three Muslim preachers in Iraq for reciting these verses in some villages,two Sunnis and one Shia as rumors have reached.

Another pity is that members of these forums are historically pretty much uneducated as ISIS itself,however only with different reasons and in different ways.

[Uniquemind]

A pity ISIS cannot read the Quran themselves.Striking off the disbelievers' head verse had lots of related verses before it which makes it completely clear that it is related to "Battlefield Matters" not "Normal Matters".

How can they call themselves Muslims if they agree with one part "...Striking off the disbelievers' head...",but not agree with the other part "...Only fight them if they want to fight you..." or "...Fight them but do not transgress..." or "...If they stopped their aggression,prepare to make peace..." or "...There is not force in accepting religion..." ?

I remember that they have killed three Muslim preachers in Iraq for reciting these verses in some villages,two Sunnis and one Shia as rumors have reached.

Another pity is that members of these forums are historically pretty much uneducated as ISIS itself,however only with different reasons and in different ways.

The problem is they've moved the goal posts of understanding on "who struck first".

They've also twisted the meaning of "Battlefield matters VS Normal matters" to mean the same thing in the context of wealth-gap inequality and corporate control over regional resources.

[Left Now]

The problem is they've moved the goal posts of understanding on "who struck first".

They've also twisted the meaning of "Battlefield matters VS Normal matters" to mean the same thing in the context of wealth-gap inequality and corporate control over regional resources.

The fact is everything can get twisted.

[Uniquemind]

The fact is everything can get twisted.

That's obvious but the question in this situation is how do you straighten it out, how do you respond to twisted ideology that drives hate and violence like the world saw and has been seeing in the past 25 years or so?

You have to ask yourself where does and how does someone get so wound up that their identity becomes an extremist? Where is the origin that drives these tragedies?

How do you stop radicalization and to be honest I don't have the complete foolproof answer.

A partial response is to educate ourselves and those who will be our children, and not to ostracize or bully others but at the same time be prudent of the world's bias and dangerous history that would prefer to teach us to think selfishly and in black and white terms.

[Sheilae]

Well, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) does and the Quran do. Just because of the fact that the rest of the Muslim world gave up these primitive practices doesn't mean they we're not in their beliefs once in a while.
It's sad that people take some things out of the Quran and Bible literally, while it's clear that you shouldn't

[Left Now]

That's obvious but the question in this situation is how do you straighten it out, how do you respond to twisted ideology that drives hate and violence like the world saw and has been seeing in the past 25 years or so?

You have to ask yourself where does and how does someone get so wound up that their identity becomes an extremist? Where is the origin that drives these tragedies?

How do you stop radicalization and to be honest I don't have the complete foolproof answer.

A partial response is to educate ourselves and those who will be our children, and not to ostracize or bully others but at the same time be prudent of the world's bias and dangerous history that would prefer to teach us to think selfishly and in black and white terms.


And this is where I 100 times more than 100% agree with you.

[Melkor]

I bet no one here has read Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale to realize how these extremist societies function. But I will say this, as an ex-muslim, I believe that Islam is in need of reformation just like Christianity did in 16th century, Islam is not compatible with today's freedom of speech and liberties that both left and the right rejoice in, Islam has been an oppressive religion, filled with bigotry and now we are called out as bigots to address this problem with Islam. Why is Islam filled with bigotry, you say; well, because Quran is based on mathematic rules that cannot be changed or touched upon, if you change it, it will lose its authenticity, and tone and all the good things about it, but this means that Quran is a book of authoritarian rule. Quran touches on subjects from politics to simple everyday life of a normal human being, eventhough the moderate muslim does not read the parts that focuses on killing the apostates and infidels, the extermist one focuses on those parts and wants to make "the Caliphate great again"(Sounds familiar, oh yeah i guessed so too) by making rivers of blood, which they did in the first century of Islam.

[Left Now]

I be no one here has read Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale to realize how these extremist societies function. But I will say this, as an ex-muslim, I believe that Islam is in need of reformation just like Christianity did in 16th century, Islam is not compatible with today's freedom of speech and liberties that both left and the right rejoice in, Islam has been an oppressive religion, filled with bigotry and now we are called out as bigots to address this problem with Islam. Why is Islam filled with bigotry, you say; well, because Quran is based on mathematic rules that cannot be changed or touched upon, if you change it, it will lose its authenticity, and tone and all the good things about it, but this means that Quran is a book authoritarian rule. Quran touches on subjects from politics to simple everyday life of a normal human being, eventhough the moderate muslim does not read the parts that focuses on killing the apostates and infidels, the extermist one focuses on those parts and wants to make "the Caliphate great again"(Sounds familiar, oh yeah i guessed so too) by making rivers of blood, which they did in the first century of Islam.

Islam in 7th century was simply even more moderate (as you may say) than many of today's so called moderate ideologies.More in touch it got with Christianity and other sects,more it got radicalized and corrupted socially.If you ask me I would say Islam needs to get back to its first in political and social matters.Islam during Muhammad and Ali's times was a cause that could easily reform societies.Islam does not need reforms,Quran has pretty much enough space for exceptions in different matters.Also there is no verse in Quran that says "...Kill apostates if they have not risen against you

Islam actually needs to get back to its beginning before formation of Caliphates.Like what Sheikh Bahaei and Mullah Sadra and Ibn Sina tried to do.

[Porpoise101]

Islam in 7th century was simply even more moderate (as you may say) than many of today's so called moderate ideologies.More in touch it got with Christianity and other sects,more it got radicalized and corrupted socially.If you ask me I would say Islam needs to get back to its first in political and social matters.Islam during Muhammad and Ali's times was a cause that could easily reform societies.Islam does not need reforms,Quran has pretty much enough space for exceptions in different matters.Also there is no verse in Quran that says "...Kill apostates if they have not risen against you

Islam actually needs to get back to its beginning before formation of Caliphates.Like what Sheikh Bahaei and Mullah Sadra and Ibn Sina tried to do.
I think the more that Islam was used for political gain the more or got corrupted. Look at how the Umayyads got started, it was totally corrupt. The same is with Christianity and Catholicism in the West with the corrupt papacy. These people l think are what allowed extremism and corrupted thought to take place.

[Left Now]

I think the more that Islam was used for political gain the more or got corrupted. Look at how the Umayyads got started, it was totally corrupt. The same is with Christianity and Catholicism in the West with the corrupt papacy. These people l think are what allowed extremism and corrupted thought to take place.

Exactly.However actually I would say political system of Islam before Umayyads was the one that could easily become todays's most useful method of politics.Unfortunately more it became like political systems of then Empires like former Sassanids in Iran and Byzantine Empire in western Asia,more it became Royal and lost its Social-People Side.Finally it turned into a tool in the hands of Empires like Ottomans and others...

Before Umayyads and during Muhammad and Ali's reign,it could be said Islam was at its peak.After that,it just got reduced more and more.Even shining examples of Islamic Governments like Fatimids and Buyyids were at their best,two of the bests of worsts Islamic Governments.The only best Islamic Governments were under Muhammad himself and Ali.Others were just shadows of governments which were so-called Islamic.

[Melkor]

Islam in 7th century was simply even more moderate (as you may say) than many of today's so called moderate ideologies.More in touch it got with Christianity and other sects,more it got radicalized and corrupted socially.If you ask me I would say Islam needs to get back to its first in political and social matters.Islam during Muhammad and Ali's times was a cause that could easily reform societies.Islam does not need reforms,Quran has pretty much enough space for exceptions in different matters.Also there is no verse in Quran that says "...Kill apostates if they have not risen against you

Islam actually needs to get back to its beginning before formation of Caliphates.Like what Sheikh Bahaei and Mullah Sadra and Ibn Sina tried to do.
You live in Iran and I believe Islam(The Islam of Ali and Muhammed) has slaughtered thousands of your people in cold blood, because they simply fought to defend their country and they were not muslims, you might counter that by saying," Oh many people chose to convert to Islam in Iran." Truely no, they wanted change, they were tired of the Sassanid rule. The Sassanid created their political system on basis of religion and class, that was the reason most Iranians were upset during their era, they supressed Maanis and Mazdaks because they did not have an army but when Islam came they had an army, that's why they took over, personally Iran would have never been conquered if Sassanid empire was not corrupt and didn't use religion as how Islamic Republic uses it right now. Muslims also follow the Hadith which is filled with killing... I don't want to quote the whole Hadith here though.

[Liam2015]

I have too agree all Isis are Muslims but all Muslims are not part of Isis

[Left Now]

You live in Iran and I believe Islam(The Islam of Ali and Muhammed) has slaughtered thousands of your people in cold blood

Oh and also Western Secularism and Freedom and Democracy have killed millions of people in Iran in cold blood.Does it make all these ideologies all wrong?

Just in last 10 years millions of people were killed for so-called "Freedom","Democracy","Rights of Women" and ...

Were they killed by these definitions?Nope.They were killed by those who claimed they are fighting for these beautiful things while they were just after profit.

Also I do not remember reading any unbiased and reliable sources about Muhammad or Ali themselves participating in any massacres of all men,women and children.By the way as you mentioned,they were just 2 massacres done by Arabs in Iran which are historically confirmed and both were in Tabaristan that half of the victims were military men resisting.They were still massacres there is no doubt about it,and Arabs were aggressors and there is no doubt about it;but relating it to Islam only because the participants in that massacre were so-called Muslims...I do not find it logic at all.By the way you can also read about how Ali's stance was toward Arabs' behaviors with Iranians,so in this matter you are nearly to all clueless because nearly all sources confirm that Ali's stance toward Iranians and even non-Muslims was friendly.



because they simply fought to defend their country and they were not muslims, you might counter that by saying," Oh many people chose to convert to Islam in Iran." Truely no, they wanted change, they were tired of the Sassanid rule.

Seriously if you really think Iranians converted to Islam at the beginning of Arabs Invasion and Arabs really wanted Iranians to be called Muslims,you are nothing better than many of our own Akhonds here in the field of history.

Iranians began seriously converting to Islam more than 60 years after Arabs Invasion and Arabs would rather have Iranians as non-Muslim vassals with regular tribute than Muslim co-patriots who would share something with them.

The first group of Iranians who converted to Islam just a few years after invasion were merchants to evade the tribute on their merchandises and get the benefits of governmental relations,not regular people.So here you just see that people were not willing to convert at all at first because a foreign cause had entered their lands with hostile intentions.

The second group of Iranians who converted to Islam were Iranians of Iraq who mostly converted during Ali's time,because during Ali's reign once again Muhammad's way of governing got literally restored and social reforms once again took place which consisted of purging royalism,equal rights of races,concerning about poverty,social equality,free markets,removal of titles and ... .These reasons were of many reasons that attracted people to convert to Islam in that region faster and faster.

This is why I say Islam has to get back to its first.Because more it contacted with Sasssanid Zoroastrianism and Byzantine Christianity,more it became like them and more it got corrupted.

Yes as an ex-Muslim understanding these things are not even easy for you right now.You have not lived in a land like Iran so keep your beliefs for where you are living.I have lived through nearly everything that you might have lived through about religion,but my historical studies helped me in many matters and they have tamed my prejudices.


The Sassanid created their political system on basis of religion and class, that was the reason most Iranians were upset during their era, they supressed Maanis and Mazdaks because they did not have an army but when Islam came they had an army.

Maani and Mazdak's ideologies about Social matters were not even near Islamic Principles in the same matters.Maani and Maazdak could not get enough support in the society because they themselves were also from nobles and many of their ideologies would still classify people in different classes,maybe lesser than then situations but still not enough for people to support.At the spark of Arab Invasion the same ideologies were practiced in Umar's government,but Ali's rule changed the situation pretty much and many people in Iran decided to convert to Islam after that.Unfortunately one of the reasons that Islam got corrupted were Iranians themselves.The Rashidun,Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates adopted many methods of Sassanids in the field of governing and social matters which were against basic principles of Islam and Muhammad's teachings.Many of the extremism and radical things that are related to Islam today began in those periods of times.

At the end of 9th century people began to convert to Islam seriously in Iran and that was because of theological similarities which were between Zoroastrianism and Islam,and also because in many matters Islamic Principles were more tolerate than Zoroastrian Traditions,and also because of short period of Ali's reign which restored many of Muhammad's methods of governing and many other reasons...so yes,at the peak of Iranians conversion to Islam,most people did it willingly and quickly.It was not at the first,it was at the middle.



, that's why they took over, personally Iran would have never been conquered if Sassanid empire was not corrupt and didn't use religion as how Islamic Republic uses it right now.

The Sassanids would fall anyway because their strategies and managements were pretty much weaker than their Arab rivals.As I said resistance against Arabs Invasion lasted in Iran for about half a century,more than 50 years after Sassanids got destroyed,so saying that Islam took over just because Sassanids were corrupted is just a simple excuse for both sides,so-called Muslims and anti-Religion people,to prove that they are right about what they say.Well that is a big lie which I have heard since the time I remember I learned how the things are in the world,from both so-called religious fanatics and radical anti-religious people.

The fact that resistance against Arabs lasted for 50 years after Sassanids' Fall and the peak of Iranians conversion to Islam was about a century after its entrance can easily prove that this statement is just a simple prejudice.

By the way,Islamic Republic is just a type of government right now mostly run by dummies.If this government was really working as it is claimed,Islamic,we wouldn't have too much social and economical corruptions here.I do not know if you know but it is completely clear that your information about Islam as an ex-Muslim,is just simple things that you have heard from walls and doors,not completely unbiased and reliable sources.I understand you as you live in Canada.As I have always said,I do not like how Muslims and Muslim preachers are out of Iran.They are even worse than so-called Muslims whom we have here.

Muslims also follow the Hadith which is filled with killing... I don't want to quote the whole Hadith here though.

First of all,I have lived in a family where Hadith is pretty important,zero of them were about killing.So claiming they are "Filled with Killing..." is just a statement as unstable as a piece of paper on water,because if it was true,I as a person who have lived in a religious atmosphere would at least once hear them.

Second,even among these Hadiths,I have learned more than 60 percents of them were from unreliable sources which either have twisted them,or are bringing Hadiths which their "Chains of Quote" are distances away from Muhammad or in Shia Islam,12 Imams which shows that how unreliable they are.So this claim cannot prove anything against Islam itself.

Finally,I do not know what atmosphere you have lived in,but you are nothing better than our own people here when it comes to history.History is not Physics,different factors are present in it which can affect many views about events which have occurred in the past.This is why I say members of this site must take reading history more seriously if they want to comment on many matters related to it.

[Porpoise101]

Oh and also Western Secularism and Freedom and Democracy have killed millions of people in Iran in cold blood.Does it make all these ideologies all wrong?


Would you call the British puppet known as the "Shah" freedom and democracy? I wouldn't as he was a repressive authoritarian who is on the opposite spectrum of what Iran is currently under. Other than that I think Persians have mostly died from Arabs and Turks.

[Left Now]

Would you call the British puppet known as the "Shah" freedom and democracy? I wouldn't as he was a repressive authoritarian who is on the opposite spectrum of what Iran is currently under. Other than that I think Persians have mostly died from Arabs and Turks.

Well mostly according to history Arabs have died in the hands of Iranians after Islam too,and Turks although were in power during many periods of times in Iran,still were influenced by Iranian themselves so saying they were mostly killed is not an appropriate phrase because still 90 percents of times Iranian themselves were in charge here.

Actually as I have always said Persians are those living in Persia or Fars we prefer to call it.If by Persians or Farsis you meant all Iranians,well you'd better use this phrase next time for it.

But about that part about Democracy and ... as I said they were killed just in the name of it,and yes they were milions who were killed just during middle 20th century.Their main goal was and of course still is their own profit.People outside of these borders are not concerned about us,it is a fact that experience has taught Iranians during last two centuries.I personally prefere the current system because although it has many problems but at the end it has nothing except internal support and if it wants to remain,it has to reform as most majority of people want.But even when it is reformed as I mentioned,still it does not mean people outside of Iran would like it too.Iranians literally have their standards which I dare to say many of them are not similar to those outside of this country.

[Stronk Serb]

It's sad that people take some things out of the Quran and Bible literally, while it's clear that you shouldn't

Those verses are pretty literal but people have just abandoned them. Nobody will deny their existence, but they will just say they do not agree with them.

[Sheilae]

Those verses are pretty literal but people have just abandoned them. Nobody will deny their existence, but they will just say they do not agree with them.
I know that those are literal , but keep in mind that the Bible and Quran are not very accurate. Generation after generation altered the verses in the holy books, that's why I think you should never take EVERYTHING literally

[Porpoise101]

Those verses are pretty literal but people have just abandoned them. Nobody will deny their existence, but they will just say they do not agree with them.
Or they will do their best to ignore them or choose to forget them often. Religious people are still just people.

[Melkor]

Oh and also Western Secularism and Freedom and Democracy have killed millions of people in Iran in cold blood.Does it make all these ideologies all wrong?

Just in last 10 years millions of people were killed for so-called "Freedom","Democracy","Rights of Women" and ...

Were they killed by these definitions?Nope.They were killed by those who claimed they are fighting for these beautiful things while they were just after profit.

Also I do not remember reading any unbiased and reliable sources about Muhammad or Ali themselves participating in any massacres of all men,women and children.By the way as you mentioned,they were just 2 massacres done by Arabs in Iran which are historically confirmed and both were in Tabaristan that half of the victims were military men resisting.They were still massacres there is no doubt about it,and Arabs were aggressors and there is no doubt about it;but relating it to Islam only because the participants in that massacre were so-called Muslims...I do not find it logic at all.By the way you can also read about how Ali's stance was toward Arabs' behaviors with Iranians,so in this matter you are nearly to all clueless because nearly all sources confirm that Ali's stance toward Iranians and even non-Muslims was friendly.





Seriously if you really think Iranians converted to Islam at the beginning of Arabs Invasion and Arabs really wanted Iranians to be called Muslims,you are nothing better than many of our own Akhonds here in the field of history.

Iranians began seriously converting to Islam more than 60 years after Arabs Invasion and Arabs would rather have Iranians as non-Muslim vassals with regular tribute than Muslim co-patriots who would share something with them.

The first group of Iranians who converted to Islam just a few years after invasion were merchants to evade the tribute on their merchandises and get the benefits of governmental relations,not regular people.So here you just see that people were not willing to convert at all at first because a foreign cause had entered their lands with hostile intentions.

The second group of Iranians who converted to Islam were Iranians of Iraq who mostly converted during Ali's time,because during Ali's reign once again Muhammad's way of governing got literally restored and social reforms once again took place which consisted of purging royalism,equal rights of races,concerning about poverty,social equality,free markets,removal of titles and ... .These reasons were of many reasons that attracted people to convert to Islam in that region faster and faster.

This is why I say Islam has to get back to its first.Because more it contacted with Sasssanid Zoroastrianism and Byzantine Christianity,more it became like them and more it got corrupted.

Yes as an ex-Muslim understanding these things are not even easy for you right now.You have not lived in a land like Iran so keep your beliefs for where you are living.I have lived through nearly everything that you might have lived through about religion,but my historical studies helped me in many matters and they have tamed my prejudices.




Maani and Mazdak's ideologies about Social matters were not even near Islamic Principles in the same matters.Maani and Maazdak could not get enough support in the society because they themselves were also from nobles and many of their ideologies would still classify people in different classes,maybe lesser than then situations but still not enough for people to support.At the spark of Arab Invasion the same ideologies were practiced in Umar's government,but Ali's rule changed the situation pretty much and many people in Iran decided to convert to Islam after that.Unfortunately one of the reasons that Islam got corrupted were Iranians themselves.The Rashidun,Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates adopted many methods of Sassanids in the field of governing and social matters which were against basic principles of Islam and Muhammad's teachings.Many of the extremism and radical things that are related to Islam today began in those periods of times.

At the end of 9th century people began to convert to Islam seriously in Iran and that was because of theological similarities which were between Zoroastrianism and Islam,and also because in many matters Islamic Principles were more tolerate than Zoroastrian Traditions,and also because of short period of Ali's reign which restored many of Muhammad's methods of governing and many other reasons...so yes,at the peak of Iranians conversion to Islam,most people did it willingly and quickly.It was not at the first,it was at the middle.





The Sassanids would fall anyway because their strategies and managements were pretty much weaker than their Arab rivals.As I said resistance against Arabs Invasion lasted in Iran for about half a century,more than 50 years after Sassanids got destroyed,so saying that Islam took over just because Sassanids were corrupted is just a simple excuse for both sides,so-called Muslims and anti-Religion people,to prove that they are right about what they say.Well that is a big lie which I have heard since the time I remember I learned how the things are in the world,from both so-called religious fanatics and radical anti-religious people.

The fact that resistance against Arabs lasted for 50 years after Sassanids' Fall and the peak of Iranians conversion to Islam was about a century after its entrance can easily prove that this statement is just a simple prejudice.

By the way,Islamic Republic is just a type of government right now mostly run by dummies.If this government was really working as it is claimed,Islamic,we wouldn't have too much social and economical corruptions here.I do not know if you know but it is completely clear that your information about Islam as an ex-Muslim,is just simple things that you have heard from walls and doors,not completely unbiased and reliable sources.I understand you as you live in Canada.As I have always said,I do not like how Muslims and Muslim preachers are out of Iran.They are even worse than so-called Muslims whom we have here.



First of all,I have lived in a family where Hadith is pretty important,zero of them were about killing.So claiming they are "Filled with Killing..." is just a statement as unstable as a piece of paper on water,because if it was true,I as a person who have lived in a religious atmosphere would at least once hear them.

Second,even among these Hadiths,I have learned more than 60 percents of them were from unreliable sources which either have twisted them,or are bringing Hadiths which their "Chains of Quote" are distances away from Muhammad or in Shia Islam,12 Imams which shows that how unreliable they are.So this claim cannot prove anything against Islam itself.

Finally,I do not know what atmosphere you have lived in,but you are nothing better than our own people here when it comes to history.History is not Physics,different factors are present in it which can affect many views about events which have occurred in the past.This is why I say members of this site must take reading history more seriously if they want to comment on many matters related to it.
Uhhh, I would disagree with you. History tends to be biased most of the times, you cannot ignore the fact that no matter what type of history book you read there are biases in them. I think, we wouldn't have any disagreements if we looked at history with a 21st century, liberal lens.

Do you think that Islamic law has no flaws what so ever ? Any law, or man made ideology, has flaws and Islam is not any different. In Islam and even in your country 2 women have to stand as witnesses, even though only 1 man has to stand as a witness in a court. I know you might address biological and emotional differences but this is completely wrong in a western country in this day and age. I know I am not going to change your stance on Islam but you have to look at this religion with a wider perspective, it has flaws so does Christianity and Judaism. Even people like me who are atheists, their ideas aren't flawless either. You have to sometimes change the lens in which you look at the world with and clean it with all your biases. But truly at the end of the day we are all humans and have biases, and we like to apply our own lens to everything, I can't even do that.

[sqishy]

The idea/etc of Freedom has come up again (as I expected it would).
I do not like this whole Freedom thing that the West likes to talk about. Freedom in what sense? Specifically what kind of Freedom? What is being meant by this Freedom? Why does it keep coming up over and over again?
It's a loaded term for sure.

[Judean Zealot]

The idea/etc of Freedom has come up again (as I expected it would).
I do not like this whole Freedom thing that the West likes to talk about. Freedom in what sense? Specifically what kind of Freedom? What is being meant by this Freedom? Why does it keep coming up over and over again?
It's a loaded term for sure.

Western freedom= anarchy.

[sqishy]

Western freedom= anarchy.

I totally don't get that. Could you elaborate? (plz)

[Judean Zealot]

I totally don't get that. Could you elaborate? (plz)

When you hear westerners rambling on about freedom they're generally referring to a libertarian anarchy where they can indulge in any sort of behaviour they so wish.

[sqishy]

When you hear westerners rambling on about freedom they're generally referring to a libertarian anarchy where they can indulge in any sort of behaviour they so wish.

I was referring to the freedom that governments and popular society talks of, not the (misguided, if I may say) view you have of absence of certain rules and such.

Anarchism is a broad term detailing self-governing non-hierarchal socio-political systems.

Libertarianism is the broad view that there should be an objective to reach some lack of limitation of choice and personal autonomy, for each person in society.


You're perceiving these as automatically going to lead to riots on the street, widespread crime and the like. That is a huge and prejudicial jump to me.

Perhaps you are right in one indirect sense - societies/society in general have got used to the idea of someone else doing the work for them, politically and otherwise. You do your job, get paid, and now you can get your dose of entertainment through TV/etc, hear about what's going on through the news, catch up with celebrities, and play some sport. Nice and comfortable, well-defined life (yes, stereotypical, but a short rough description with some backing behind it).

I'm not talking about 'growing up and learning to live by yourself in society' freedom, I mean 'being mentally independent of rules/authorities one is under' freedom.

In this sense, there is a fear of personal freedom (which here is specified and definite in concept). There is a fear of the unknown. People want certainty, and dislike what sounds or looks different. It is easier to fit in. It is easier to go with custom of habit.
There is a metaphorical fear of the dark, and no, it is not purely our psychology and coming from 'inside' us. External forces, many dishonest, make use of it. Example: media portrayal of terrorism.

[rioo]

I'm disagree with 'ISIS=Muslim' , because basically Isis create their own religion. That's the Fact.
And their religion is coming from chaos of Iraq war previously.

[phuckphace]

Paraxiom

his point is sound, regardless of how anarchy or libertarianism is defined, the end goal for these people (largely teens) is a world where duties do not exist and the freedom in question is the freedom to pursue as much consequence-free hedonism as possible. it's no accident that the green quadrant on the political compass is disproportionately crowded by any sample of teens. naturally if you quizzed their parents, most would be in the right-hand corner of the blue quadrant.

you seem to be equating conservatism/nationalism to irrational paranoia of something, which I think is wrong. plenty of conservatives recognize that the threat of terrorism is politically overblown by neocons, and it's become apparent to many that supporting George Bush was a grave mistake. my own dad used to be a Fox News Bush shill, but even he's lately taken to ranting about how badly Bush screwed the country and wasted American lives and money in Iraq.

then again maybe I misunderstood your argument so disregard this if that's the case, lol

[Judean Zealot]

Paraxiom

What phuckphace said.

[TheFutureDoctor]

I am firmly of the opinion that no religion promotes terrorism. Just a small story I heard:

A Christian couple driving in a car were stopped by ISIS militants. The man was asked if he was a Muslim. He said" yes". The militants asked him to recite a verse from the Quran. The man recited a para from the Bible. The militants let the couple go. Afterwards, the wife asked, "what if they had found out we were lying? They would have killed us!" The man replied: If they knew the Quran, they wouldn't be killing people.

[Miserabilia]

Paraxiom

his point is sound, regardless of how anarchy or libertarianism is defined, the end goal for these people (largely teens) is a world where duties do not exist and the freedom in question is the freedom to pursue as much consequence-free hedonism as possible. it's no accident that the green quadrant on the political compass is disproportionately crowded by any sample of teens. naturally if you quizzed their parents, most would be in the right-hand corner of the blue quadrant.

you seem to be equating conservatism/nationalism to irrational paranoia of something, which I think is wrong. plenty of conservatives recognize that the threat of terrorism is politically overblown by neocons, and it's become apparent to many that supporting George Bush was a grave mistake. my own dad used to be a Fox News Bush shill, but even he's lately taken to ranting about how badly Bush screwed the country and wasted American lives and money in Iraq.

then again maybe I misunderstood your argument so disregard this if that's the case, lol

Sadly I haven't come across a lot of liberals who aren't like that,
but then again I haven't found a lot of conservatives who are like what you describe them as here either.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom

his point is sound, regardless of how anarchy or libertarianism is defined, the end goal for these people (largely teens) is a world where duties do not exist and the freedom in question is the freedom to pursue as much consequence-free hedonism as possible. it's no accident that the green quadrant on the political compass is disproportionately crowded by any sample of teens. naturally if you quizzed their parents, most would be in the right-hand corner of the blue quadrant.

you seem to be equating conservatism/nationalism to irrational paranoia of something, which I think is wrong. plenty of conservatives recognize that the threat of terrorism is politically overblown by neocons, and it's become apparent to many that supporting George Bush was a grave mistake. my own dad used to be a Fox News Bush shill, but even he's lately taken to ranting about how badly Bush screwed the country and wasted American lives and money in Iraq.

then again maybe I misunderstood your argument so disregard this if that's the case, lol

I was bringing up libertarianism/etc as a side-topic; I don't like the idea of absence of duties and plain do-what-you-want views either, I just take the view that authority can exist in a much more localised level, etc.
This brings up the view I take that what situation we are brought up in affects greatly our chances of going with a certain political angle. We are much less in direct intellectual control of our ideas than we think; it does not mean we cannot change that though, it helps to know (or be open to) certain things that seem to define us.
I equate most of what I hear from the right-wing areas as some paranoia or fear/hatred yes, I do not make the assumption that they are all like that. I do feel you missed my point yes, but thanks for replying.

Paraxiom

What phuckphace said.

Noted.

As from the start, I question what all this Freedom-hailing is about. Terrorism and Freedom get talked about a lot with regards to each other.

[rioo]

Here is again terorist attack.
But this is so cruel how they doing it in broad day light, so people will more scared because they can see the smoke and gun fire clearly. Isis(still suspected) getting more cruel.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3398712/explosions-heavy-gunfire-heard-central-Jakarta.html

[ethan-s]

What folks dont realize is.that the attackers are so called good muslims. They did what their holy book said, which is what being a good muslim is about.

[Judean Zealot]

What folks dont realize is.that the attackers are so called good muslims. They did what their holy book said, which is what being a good muslim is about.

Have you actually read some proper Islamic theology so you know what you're talking about? Same goes for the libs on the other end of the debate, who insist that these people 'aren't Muslims'. I tend to keep my mouth shut on the topic because I don't know enough about Islamic theology to honestly assert an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to know all about Islam, so help me out here. (I'm willing to bet that without googling it you can't even name a single Muslim theologian, let alone quote one.

I would like you to cite me some theologians (not the Quran or Hadith. The Quran is notoriously inconsistent - what's important is how it's been historically interpreted).

[Abhorrence]

Have you actually read some proper Islamic theology so you know what you're talking about? Same goes for the libs on the other end of the debate, who insist that these people 'aren't Muslims'. I tend to keep my mouth shut on the topic because I don't know enough about Islamic theology to honestly assert an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to know all about Islam, so help me out here. (I'm willing to bet that without googling it you can't even name a single Muslim theologian, let alone quote one.

I would like you to cite me some theologians (not the Quran or Hadith. The Quran is notoriously inconsistent - what's important is how it's been historically interpreted).
I may be wrong here because this is just something I've been told in passing but apparently ISIS started off from a Muslim group that sought to bring about the end of the world faster because of some prophecy. I'm not really an avid knower when it comes to Islam either so I don't know if this is true or not and I can't remember the name of the group. But at least I tried lol.

[Jinglebottom]

I thought ISIS was the West's work.

[phuckphace]

Muslims are a Jewish conspiracy

[Judean Zealot]

I may be wrong here because this is just something I've been told in passing but apparently ISIS started off from a Muslim group that sought to bring about the end of the world faster because of some prophecy. I'm not really an avid knower when it comes to Islam either so I don't know if this is true or not and I can't remember the name of the group. But at least I tried lol.

Yes, ISIS is definitely a religious force, but the question here is what their relation to actual Islam is.

[Abhorrence]

Yes, ISIS is definitely a religious force, but the question here is what their relation to actual Islam is.
It was like a subculture, I'll have to get the name of it. But they took some of the writings detailing the apocalypse in a way in which they saw that the end of the world had to be brought forward. So although they're now a group of terrorists, they were basically like a separate form of Islam, like there's protestants and catholics etc etc. I really need to get the name though [emoji14]

[Judean Zealot]

It was like a subculture, I'll have to get the name of it. But they took some of the writings detailing the apocalypse in a way in which they saw that the end of the world had to be brought forward. So although they're now a group of terrorists, they were basically like a separate form of Islam, like there's protestants and catholics etc etc. I really need to get the name though [emoji14]

Yet the question remains regarding how that reflects on the rest of Islam. It is possible that they reflect on Islam no more than marginal Christian sects, such as Christian Identity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) reflect on Christianity. I guess you can say that the question is whether they fall within the theological bounds of Islam, or they're essentially another religion that uses Islamic themes for their own separate ends.

[Abhorrence]

Yet the question remains regarding how that reflects on the rest of Islam. It is possible that they reflect on Islam no more than marginal Christian sects, such as Christian Identity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) reflect on Christianity. I guess you can say that the question is whether they fall within the theological bounds of Islam, or they're essentially another religion that uses Islamic themes for their own separate ends.
Oh, I don't think it should reflect on Islam in entirety because it's just an interpretation. If someone somehow interpreted scripture to mean that Christians should blow everything up, it wouldn't be the fault of the religion in general - just the group that believed that it was righteous.

[Judean Zealot]

Oh, I don't think it should reflect on Islam in entirety because it's just an interpretation. If someone somehow interpreted scripture to mean that Christians should blow everything up, it wouldn't be the fault of the religion in general - just the group that believed that it was righteous.

And yet, to look at the other possibility, if I knew more I might be able to demonstrate that in fact ISIS's teachings are an accurate version of Islam, as manifested both in theological and historical Islamic Orthodoxy.

My point was that people confidently assert one way or the other without having any serious theological background in Islam (and no, an uncharitable reading of an English Koran or what a New York Times op-ed wrote doesn't count). That annoys me; it is blatant intellectual dishonesty.

[Abhorrence]

And yet, to look at the other possibility, if I knew more I might be able to demonstrate that in fact ISIS's teachings are an accurate version of Islam, as manifested both in theological and historical Islamic Orthodoxy.

My point was that people confidently assert one way or the other without having any serious theological background in Islam (and no, an uncharitable reading of an English Koran or what a New York Times op-ed wrote doesn't count). That annoys me; it is blatant intellectual dishonesty.
True point, I'll try and get more information. I'll ask my philosophy teacher. [emoji14]

[Uniquemind]

We seriously need more education on the history of Islam, to either confirm or deny what exactly ISIS is.

However even before that I don't think the faith even said it was proper for Islam to branch out into the Sunni and Shi'itte, differing points of view.


I don't even think the faith is supposed to have Imams.

I think the faith kinda fell apart due to the power vacuum left behind after Their prophet's death.

It's the whole, oh humans need a figurehead, issue and then humans do what humans do, they compete over the prestige position of power and authority, and then violence occurs, and then it just becomes one side avenging the other because you killed their loved ones...then it never ends. Scripture becomes an excuse to keep the violence fueled by grudges going.

Either way I do NOT like ISIS, I think they're emotional ideologues clinging to violence because they at their core are powerless individuals who don't know who they are and do what they do to find meaning in themselves because they couldn't on their own. They don't understand love or compassion and like two year olds just break stuff for no good reason or merit.

There's no need to bring about the death of anybody, natural geological forces will cause an extinction event all in good time, or the cosmos will. What they do is pointless and hurtful.

[ethan-s]

Have you actually read some proper Islamic theology so you know what you're talking about? Same goes for the libs on the other end of the debate, who insist that these people 'aren't Muslims'. I tend to keep my mouth shut on the topic because I don't know enough about Islamic theology to honestly assert an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to know all about Islam, so help me out here. (I'm willing to bet that without googling it you can't even name a single Muslim theologian, let alone quote one.

I would like you to cite me some theologians (not the Quran or Hadith. The Quran is notoriously inconsistent - what's important is how it's been historically interpreted).
yes, i have.

[Porpoise101]

Have you actually read some proper Islamic theology so you know what you're talking about? Same goes for the libs on the other end of the debate, who insist that these people 'aren't Muslims'. I tend to keep my mouth shut on the topic because I don't know enough about Islamic theology to honestly assert an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to know all about Islam, so help me out here. (I'm willing to bet that without googling it you can't even name a single Muslim theologian, let alone quote one.

I would like you to cite me some theologians (not the Quran or Hadith. The Quran is notoriously inconsistent - what's important is how it's been historically interpreted).
I'm not that familiar, but I know about the various movements in Islamic history. In the beginning there was a sect that believed that the caliph had to be selected from the people and they actually fought against Ali using terrorism. These guys actually resemble IS a lot. Speed ahead, and when the Arabs started to attack Byzantine and Sassanid land, they found all of these Greek writings. They became more scientific, rational, and more tolerant. This was the Islamic Golden Age. But it ended because of the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols and popular revolts demanding more faith. So Islamic thought gradually became more insular and mystic as the nations weren't as connected. There are some notable exceptions though, like the Mughal's early rule in India.

So yeah I think they are Muslims, just not a mainstream stand of Islam. The sect I think was called Khawaarij, but since it has changed into the much more peaceful Ibadi sect which is only popular around Oman and Tunisia.

[Jinglebottom]

What I know about Islam from my vague 6th grade memories: Pre-7th century Arabia was full of polytheists, so Muhammad claimed that he got the message from some prophet to proclaim a strictly monotheistic religion (like Christianity and Judaism at the time) to enlighten the people. Thus, Islam was born somewhere in the Hijaz region of what is now Saudi Arabia. He managed to convert most of the residents of Arabia (obviously) and then Islam spread to Persia, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Anatolia etc...

Then Muhammad died and that whole Sunni-Shia feud started over who should succeed him. I think the Shias believed it should be Ali, idk about the Sunnis.

That was real specific, huh? My ignorance is glowing.

[Porpoise101]

Then Muhammad died and that whole Sunni-Shia feud started over who should succeed him. I think the Shias believed it should be Ali, idk about the Sunnis.
I think Shias believe that Ali was the one who should have succeeded Muhammad, but instead he was the fourth one.

[Judean Zealot]

yes, i have.

Well, I eagerly await citations and analysis.

By the way, who have you read? Avicenna? Averroes? Al-Ghazzali?

[Jinglebottom]

I think Shias believe that Ali was the one who should have succeeded Muhammad, but instead he was the fourth one.
I still can't believe that was the cause for one of the most brutal continuous religious feud I've ever seen. I'd love to get opinions from Sunnis and Shias themselves on the matter, but whenever I ask them about it they reply that it's none of my business.

[Judean Zealot]

I still can't believe that was the cause for one of the most brutal continuous religious feud I've ever seen. I'd love to get opinions from Sunnis and Shias themselves on the matter, but whenever I ask them about it they reply that it's none of my business.

Well, the issues now revolve around theological differences, as each sect views pretty much only the Hadiths and traditions of their partisans as authoritative. It still does seem sort of overblown.

[Jinglebottom]

Well, the issues now revolve around theological differences, as each sect views pretty much only the Hadiths and traditions of their partisans as authoritative. It still does seem sort of overblown.
Honestly, I've never noticed much of a difference between both sects. Apart from some slight differences in holidays/observances, they always seemed pretty similar to me. But then again, I have never gone very in-depth in finding out about the history of Islam, how it got divided, the turbulent aftermath and the events that happened later on. I'm pretty clueless about religion as a whole (even my own).

[Porpoise101]

Well, the issues now revolve around theological differences, as each sect views pretty much only the Hadiths and traditions of their partisans as authoritative. It still does seem sort of overblown.
Yeah even the Catholics and the Protestants had the 30 years war to get all that out of their system.

[Judean Zealot]

Yeah even the Catholics and the Protestants had the 30 years war to get all that out of their system.

They still haven't fully; see North Ireland.

[Porpoise101]

They still haven't fully; see North Ireland.
That's because the ideals of the Glorious Enlightenment never spread there. Until recently it was a backwater.

[Judean Zealot]

That's because the ideals of the Glorious Enlightenment never spread there. Until recently it was a backwater.

Really? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke)

The Anglo enlightenment pretty much started there.

[Porpoise101]

Really? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke)

The Anglo enlightenment pretty much started there.
Wow in school we learned it was mostly French and German, I never knew that. I did know that there were some notable English ones though.