Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Yes, my list of clear, direct quotes from the Qur'an clearly holds no relevance in addressing how ISIS fundamentalists are able to readily justify their atrocities in the name of god with a straight face, because we actually need this additional context from 1400 years ago. For reasons.

This is not "additional" context. This is direct context the verses are from. For example "When the forbidden months are past...", what are these forbidden months? These months were agreed by Pagans to be holy during which all intra tribal conflicts would be ceased. So why not not apply more context to rest of the verse? Why is Chapter 9 repeatedly talking about a treaty?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

But the telling thing is you can have debates about the permissibility of slaves in Islam. Actual debates; points and counter points, which underlines the fundamental issue; there is theological justification for this according to some and you wouldn't need to look far to find them.

Yup.

You would think that the almighty creator of the whole fucking universe, the supreme arbiter of morality, would have used very clear, unambiguous language and would have made sure to pass it down properly. Here, let me try:

"Humans! Do not rape. Do not enslave one another. Ever. Under no circumstances. Do not assault or kill other humans unless your very life is in immediate danger."

There. Done. No room for misinterpretation. (Add a clause about if you are forced to do these things under duress, the responsibility isn't yours, if you must.) But that's it. There, I just wrote morally superior scriptures than God.

In fact it's quite telling than the modern legal system is far morally superior to scripture. Really makes you wonder why anyone would still use scripture as the basis of their moral compass.

You can justify anything with anything if you try hard enough. You eventually start to believe your own bullshit.

True, but you also don't even need to try that hard when it comes to the Quran or even the Bible.

Gonna to have to add that one to the armory.

The whole "Islam's ultimate goal was to slowly eradicate slavery" is a crock of shit. Allah/Muhammad never said the goal was to rid the world of slavery, and history tells the complete opposite story.

It took Islam over a thousand years to actually make some serious effort in abolishing slavery, and most of it was done during the past century because of pressure from the "evil Western colonial powers." There was no grassroots movement within the Islamic world to rid the world of slavery. Look at the last dozen or so countries to abolish slavery... almost all of them are Muslim countries. And we're only talking about the past 70 or so years. Now we have ISIS carrying on the legacy.

At the end of the day, slavery -- in principle -- is not a sin in Islam.

Boom

 

[RustyNails]

ISIS members and sympathizers are often aware of the additional context posted in this thread and they don't seem too disturbed by it.

Perhaps this context isn't that clear, unambiguous, and compelling. Perhaps other context (like Muhammad's actual historical behaviour) outweighs it. Perhaps all ideologies are not exactly equal in their effects on human behaviour, and perhaps Islam might be more easily and more commonly interpreted to promote evil actions than, say, environmentalism or Buddhism or vegetarianism. Perhaps the existence of ecoterrorism, Buddhist persecution of Burmese Muslims, and vegetarian Hitler aren't good evidence that all beliefs cause all behaviours to precisely the same degree. Perhaps ISIS (and other similar movements such as Boko Haram) are related to Islam, even if there are other additional causes.

Context is perfectly clear and readily available through the works of Ibn Hisham, Ibn Kathir and others. You can choose to ignore the context if it does not suit your objectives especially if you want people to agree to your motives. I'd like to know about the ISIS ulema/scholars that talk about Quran in its context while justifying their actions.

ISIS and Boko Haram are related to Islam and are Muslims, although vile and despicable ones. Muslims need to admit this and work to address the chasm that exists between Muslims and their knowledge and understanding of their doxtrine. Its not enough to pray 5 times, pay zakat and fast in Ramadan anymore.

 

[tfur]

Not surprising.
They are just doing what Mohammed did himself.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Context is perfectly clear and readily available through the works of Ibn Hisham, Ibn Kathir and others. You can choose to ignore the context if it does not suit your objectives especially if you want people to agree to your motives. I'd like to know about the ISIS ulema/scholars that talk about Quran in its context while justifying their actions.

My point is that it's obviously not clear to those who believe differently. If ISIS was completely made up of pure opportunists, that would be a different situation, but a substantial portion of its members truly, deeply believe their interpretation of Islam. They don't have objectives besides being (what they perceive to be) "good Muslims".

Law in general, like Islam, is open to many interpretations. Ultimately, what gives those interpretations power, weight, and correctness is not some sort of "objective" reading of the law (which never exists), or the prominence of the scholar giving the interpretation, but how the law is actually used and enforced.

In other words, ideologies (religious or not) should be judged by the results they yield. They shouldn't be judged by trying to guess the effects of some pristine, "official" form of them, because it's impossible to agree on that form.

ISIS and Boko Haram are related to Islam and are Muslims, although vile and despicable ones. Muslims need to admit this and work to address the chasm that exists between Muslims and their knowledge and understanding of their doxtrine. Its not enough to pray 5 times, pay zakat and fast in Ramadan anymore.

I'm genuinely glad you think so, and I wish denial of this wasn't so common among others.

 

[janoDX]

Sorry but everytime I read something like this, the more I want the Islam and Muslim culture to be deleted from the face of the earth.

 

[Red Mage]

So much for them having the moral high ground along with their prized "objective morality."

The Abrahamic traditions couldn't even get slavery right. What a shame.

Slavery is mentioned in Scripture is nothing like you think. In the Ancient Near East, they did not have bankruptcy, etc. The solution was for people to become indentured servants. However, God gave a limit for this, it being the Jubilee celebration, which happened every seven years. Heck, ancient Israel had better property rights than most modern nations, since people couldn't permanently buy your land if you were desperate for money, they could only buy the use of it for so many years.

 

[m_shortpants]

Sorry but everytime I read something like this, the more I want the Islam and Muslim culture to be deleted from the face of the earth.

Nice, let's just generalize about 1.6 billion people.

 

[janoDX]

Nice, let's just generalize about 1.6 billion people.

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Slavery is mentioned in Scripture is nothing like you think. In the Ancient Near East, they did not have bankruptcy, etc. The solution was for people to become indentured servants. However, God gave a limit for this

How kind of Him. I guess the creator of the whole universe really couldn't do better than that.

Yet somehow humans managed that eventually. Humans > God confirmed.

 

[Insertia]

Thugs. Hiding behind a book so they can unleash their perversion.

 

[CrocMother]

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

Just what do you mean when you say "cleanse" and "delete"?

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

You don't seem to understand, you can't delete a culture(and if that means killing people then you shouldn't wish that at all).

 

[Condom]

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

Let's fight fascism with even more fascism! That's sounds good!

Muslim culture is not the reason extremist groups and ideologies rise up, war and poverty are the reason.

Oh and Saudi-Arabia, fuck Saudi-Arabia.

 

[CrocMother]

People either forget about or don't know about the several centuries where Islam was the most progressive and tolerant major religion.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

You're advocating genocide?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

People either forget about or don't know about the several centuries where Islam was the most progressive and tolerant major religion.

We know and haven't forgotten, but it's not progressive and tolerant right now, and that's a big problem.

 

[RustyNails]

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

How do you delete them?

 

[BluePigGanon]

We know and haven't forgotten, but it's not progressive and tolerant right now, and that's a big problem.

You can't make a blanket statement like that.

Islam is a billion and a half people, spread all over the world, with all sorts of factions, branches, types. Talking about "Islam" as a whole based on the actions of a minority of f-ed up people in a generally f-ed up part of the world is silly.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

How do you delete them?

"Kill 'em all"

 

[Morrigan Stark]

You can't make a blanket statement like that.

Islam is a billion and a half people, spread all over the world, with all sorts of factions, branches, types. Talking about "Islam" as a whole based on the actions of a minority of f-ed up people in a generally f-ed up part of the world is silly.

I'm not just talking about the extremists, though there are certainly large numbers of them compared to other mainstream religions. Islamic countries in general are not known for their progressive and pro-human rights values.
There are obviously Muslims who are progressive individuals, but Islam in general does not go hand in hand with progressive values today, even if they did in the past relative to other cultures.

 

[RK9039]

Sorry but everytime I read something like this, the more I want the Islam and Muslim culture to be deleted from the face of the earth.

Good luck with that.

 

[Duji]

People either forget about or don't know about the several centuries where Islam was the most progressive and tolerant major religion.

True. From this thread alone we learned that they went out of their way to be extra nice to their slaves, where other nations treated theirs like shit.

It's not generalization, I have muslim friends, but I expressed the same to them and they say that the culture at least on the middle east is just intoxicated and needs cleanse.

At least on that place Islam and muslim culture needs cleansing, and if that means just deleting them, I'm all for it, one bad apple spoils the bunch. Is there a way to save them?, yes, but If the nations doesn't take any action against ISIS or any terrorist group soon, the only option that would left is the one I say, just delete the entire culture.

Is this you?

 

[BluePigGanon]

I'm not just talking about the extremists, though there are certainly large numbers of them compared to other mainstream religions. Islamic countries in general are not known for their progressive and pro-human rights values.
There are obviously Muslims who are progressive individuals, but Islam in general does not go hand in hand with progressive values today, even if they did in the past relative to other cultures.

Again, you're talking about a billion and a half people all over the world. I'm not sure how you can say "Islamic countries in general", or what metric you're using. But in any case, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "progressive values". I thought we were talking about rapists and murderers. If instead we're talking about remaking the world so everyone everywhere - both within the States and without - shares the most progressive beliefs about everything, well... I don't see that as entirely different from the nonsense these other posters have said about wiping the culture out entirely.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Again, you're talking about a billion and a half people all over the world. I'm not sure how you can say "Islamic countries in general", or what metric you're using.

I don't know what's ambiguous here.

Islamic countries = countries where the official state religion is Islam and/or where the vast majority of population is Muslim. Including but not limited to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Indonesia, Algeria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, and so on.

But in any case, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "progressive values".

What else would I mean? Gender equality, freedom of speech, fair trials, LGBT inclusion, civil liberties, human rights and so on. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Hell, fun fact, if you Google "progressive values" without any other modifier, one of the first result is about this group:
http://www.mpvusa.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_for_Progressive_Values

Basically, we need more groups like this because this group is sadly not representative of the situation in Islamic countries. Or at least, they certainly don't seem to have a lot of power right now. Hell, here it says, "According to the Global Network for Rights and Development, the United Arab Emirates is the only one of 48 Muslim-majority countries with human rights comparable to Western democracies.". Considering how ghastly the UAE is when it comes to its human rights records, that's really bad.

I thought we were talking about rapists and murderers. If instead we're talking about remaking the world so everyone everywhere - both within the State and without - shares the most progressive beliefs about everything, well... I don't see that as entirely different from the nonsense these other posters have said about wiping the culture out entirely.

Er.... What in the seven hells are you talking about? Making Indonesia more inclusive to LGBT groups or giving women equal rights in Saudi Arabia = wiping out a culture now?

No, seriously, WTF?

 

[m_shortpants]

I don't know what's ambiguous here.

Islamic countries = countries where the official state religion is Islam and/or where the vast majority of population is Muslim. Including but not limited to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Indonesia, Algeria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, and so on.

Funny thing is that all the countries you listed make up a minority of the Muslim world. The Middle East makes up only a fraction of the world's Muslims.

And let's also not forget that here in the US we still have institutionalized racism in many forms, so I'd consider it a bit unfair to expect the same standards in a region of the world that was plagued by imperialism, colonialism, tyrants/dictators (often supported by us...), poverty, and war for basically the entire 20th century to this day. That's not to say what ISIS or any other group is doing is fine, obviously.

 

[waypoetic]

It's time to kill their god.

I'm sorry, how do you kill something that doesn't exist? Like, when's unicorn season? I'd love me one of those on the wall.

 

[Chairman Yang]

People either forget about or don't know about the several centuries where Islam was the most progressive and tolerant major religion.

I definitely didn't know about this. More tolerant and progressive than Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism? I'd be interested in details.

 

[TimeEffect]

The thing that I have a problem with is that the Quran is held to be perfect, but we know that it's not. Any reasonable person does, yet religious people insist upon the divinity of their text.

Despite any good in the text, it seems senseless to think that a perfect text would say anything at all that can be interpreted to support evil, or need context that only scholars today can understand or explain.

I've seen the same thing from Christians, particularly with claims of prophecy and predicting "scientific" discoveries before they happened. Often, this is used to show divinity today by apologists.

You have a lot of people and scholars who need to BE scholars to understand some of the text (supposedly, as often you hear Muslims say "You cant criticize Islam, you are not a scholar!").

The idea that Allah would play within the rules of slavery to make it acceptable, or any other form of social norms in those times that were very clearly harmful or evil seems like an imperfect way to read the text too.

You would think the most perfect God who has a perfect book would make a book that is incredibly straight forward, and that is big enough to abolish evil in the time period very clearly. But this doesn't happen. He plays along. Any other person can see the more reasonable conclusion: the writers are writing not from divinity, but from their perspective and values.

Yet none of that is the case, and it's unsurprising that a book that clearly has even some leeway to make atrocities acceptable is being used by believers of the book to justify their evil actions. We also know that historically, religions have spread by justifying their evil actions, and that we can credit their current status in part to the evil they've done in the past. How is this okay?

To say that they are interpreting incorrectly doesn't say much, despite the fact that SOME interpretations are more clear than others, because we know that some interpretations do exist that are NOT clear. A perfect book would not have such struggles.

Just look at the debates we're having here. You would think that if the book is perfect, a vast majority of this would be clear, without room for rebuttal. But it's not the case, and it's either that the book is flawed, which Muslims seemingly can't admit, or down to interpretation, much of which goes through too much mental gymnastics to ever suggest that the book is clear to begin with.

While I have not gone through every single text in the Quran, I have read enough about some of the justifications used by Muslims to know that it's convoluted to argue. I saw the same thing with the Old Testament where apologists try really hard to justify a lot of the wrongs of the Bible. It just flat out makes no sense to use historical context to justify a lot of what we today know is evil and wrong, yet this God seems to not have any sense of power or decency to do better with his people. I don't get how Christians and Muslims can say their books are God given, despite the indecency, evil, and confusion that comes from it. That we need expert scholars and historical context should suggest that the books are written by people and are not written/inspired by a perfect god, but it seems to be that people greatly believe in the divinity of these religions despite the fact. In Christianity, you often here people say God inspired the bible through imperfect human beings. What a shortsighted method.

To that extent, I often wonder if Muslims regard the Quran as unchangeable and plainly true for all ages, or requiring interpretation and scholarly citation. When they come across text that seems to suggest a tolerance of evil, do they think there is a deeper justification that is not readily clear, do they think it was okay for that society at that time, do they think the text is unclear altogether? There is a lot of internal debating too, as often you have Muslims who interpret differently than their brothers and sisters.

You can easily poke around the bible the same way, but you get more pushback from Muslims because they either question your position to question the cultural and historical context of their book, or give you the same excuses Christians do, and disregard your criticism through a framework of apologetics.

So, to think ISIS gets inspiration from the Quran doesn't surprise me, and despite the fact that decent Muslims know better than to follow the Quran's controversial texts, it doesn't make sense that the Quran itself is inherently the word of God, because we know that it has a lot that is either not readily easy to interpret, or flat out promotes evil to begin with, in a way that a perfect God should not tolerate. This usually results in a debate about the nature of the Abrahamic God, none of which is ever convincing.

It's one thing to say that ordinary Muslims don't uphold the values of ISIS-- of course they don't. But I often find Muslims hold the Quran to incredibly high regard. The Bible is often torn apart and the voice of apologists have to fight against the Western world that is so critical of it. It's not so with the Quran, yet the apologetic tactics are no different.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Funny thing is that all the countries you listed make up a minority of the Muslim world. The Middle East makes up only a fraction of the world's Muslims.

Funny how? Indonesia is not in the Middle East, neither is Egypt [oops, my mistake]. Indonesia has 200 million Muslims, it's the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt by themselves make up almost 30% of the world's Muslim population.

Not that it really matters. I also wrote "included but not limited to", and purposefully listed Muslim countries from various continents, so I really don't see how you can say I'm not listing countries that are not representative of being "Islamic countries".

And let's also not forget that here in the US we still have institutionalized racism in many forms,

What's your point? I've never excused institutionalized racism anywhere. That the US has its own social problems is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Obvious fallacy is obvious.

 

[Suen]

absolutely sickening. the only reason they don't do this to christian and shia women is because there would be hell to pay. they would invite a whole shitstorm on themselves by western and shia countries/groups. yazidis on the other hand are pretty much defenseless with no large group representing them anywhere else... so sad.

Christians might get enslaved and eventually killed (or traded for prisoners). Shia are killed on the spot, and no they don't care about the killing of both. Guess which two groups that immediately left Mosul when ISIS were on their way? Christians and Shia.

The world already ignored huge massacres of Shia muslims last year, and continue to do so today. The "free civilized progressive western world" gaffers love to mention here are directly in bed with countries involved in the destabilization of Iraq and Syria. Those countries also bomb the groups that fight against ISIS (and in some cases the "free civilized west" is providing them logistic support and weapons). Their nationals are often responsible for the worst massacres in those countries as well.

Some of those countries have directly admitted to destabilize and keep Iraq and Syria weak for a great geopolitical ambitions and plenty of leaks have shown them bribing political leaders of those countries and supporting terrorist groups.

Of course the moment something good comes out of those countries, or great progress is made against IS or from the people then the global/western news is nowhere to be seen (except if its the Peshmerga, a bunch of politically-controlled cowards who've done countless of massacres)...because that would mean the news outlets, their readers and the world in general would have to acknowledge Iraqis and Syrians as actual human beings, something many (unconsiously) don't.

Good to see the "free civilized west" in great relation with those wonderful countries. But then the West hasn't been much civilized itself in the past decades with regard to the region....you don't even need to go decades back, 2003 and onwards is ok. However, it's ok when it's state-sanctioned and it's a western country doing it...according to the majority of us living in the western world anyway. When we admit that it wasn't a good idea then it usually isn't because we care about our barbarian acts in those countries but because x amount of our soldiers died.

The Great Free West with their great Middle Eastern dictatorships. Truly an example to follow.

Fucking jokes.

Actually, their doctrine explicitly allows for Christians to live among them, so long as they offer submission and pay a special tax called jizya (same goes for Jews). And they don't rape Shiites because they would rather kill them for the crime of modifying, thereby defacing the original perfection of Islam. The rest of that video is great for anyone interested in this stuff (no gore).

Good video. Thanks

 

[RustyNails]

Funny how? Indonesia is not in the Middle East, neither is Egypt. Indonesia has 200 million Muslims, it's the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt by themselves make up almost 30% of the world's Muslim population.

Not that it really matters. I also wrote "included but not limited to", and purposefully listed Muslim countries from various continents, so I really don't see how you can say I'm not listing countries that are not representative of being "Islamic countries".


What's your point? I've never excused institutionalized racism anywhere. That the US has its own social problems is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Obvious fallacy is obvious.

Egypt is not in the middle east? Lol

This is funny.

 

[Suen]

Egypt is not in the middle east? Lol

This is funny.

I find it strange that Egypt is sometimes not included in Middle East while Southasian countries like Pakistan are included in the greater middle east. If anything Egypt is about 1000 times more related to the rest of Middle East than Pakistan, even just in term of ethnicity and language alone. Anyway, part of Middle East, but still an African country of course.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Egypt is not in the middle east? Lol

This is funny.

I guess it depends on who you ask. For a long time the Middle East didn't include North Africa. Now sometimes you see North Africa counted in the Middle East or in the "Greater Middle East", sometimes it's only Egypt.

Anyway, I fail to see how geographical nitpicking like that is even relevant to the discussion.

 

[RustyNails]

My point is that it's obviously not clear to those who believe differently. If ISIS was completely made up of pure opportunists, that would be a different situation, but a substantial portion of its members truly, deeply believe their interpretation of Islam. They don't have objectives besides being (what they perceive to be) "good Muslims".

Law in general, like Islam, is open to many interpretations. Ultimately, what gives those interpretations power, weight, and correctness is not some sort of "objective" reading of the law (which never exists), or the prominence of the scholar giving the interpretation, but how the law is actually used and enforced.

In other words, ideologies (religious or not) should be judged by the results they yield. They shouldn't be judged by trying to guess the effects of some pristine, "official" form of them, because it's impossible to agree on that form.

I'm interested in responding to your posts in detail because you don't respond with "lol religion/God" to everything that happens in that region (and I also like reading your posts, as they are intellectually honest even though I may not necessarily agree with the conclusions). From what I understand ISIS is an organization, just like Al Qaida, with a very powerful leadership, battlefield commanders, generals and foot soldiers. The leadership, despite Baghdadi's religious prominence is made up of ex-Baathists with formidable field and tactical experience. These same individuals led the crippling insurgency post-Saddam against the coalition forces.

When Abu Hamza, a former Syrian rebel, agreed to join the Islamic State, he did so assuming he would become a part of the group’s promised Islamist utopia, which has lured foreign jihadists from around the globe.

Instead, he found himself being supervised by an Iraqi emir and receiving orders from shadowy Iraqis who moved in and out of the battlefield in Syria. When Abu Hamza disagreed with fellow commanders at an Islamic State meeting last year, he said, he was placed under arrest on the orders of a masked Iraqi man who had sat silently through the proceedings, listening and taking notes.

Abu Hamza, who became the group’s ruler in a small community in Syria, never discovered the Iraqis’ real identities, which were cloaked by code names or simply not revealed. All of the men, however, were former Iraqi officers who had served under Saddam Hussein, including the masked man, who had once worked for an Iraqi intelligence agency and now belonged to the Islamic State’s own shadowy security service, he said.

His account, and those of others who have lived with or fought against the Islamic State over the past two years, underscore the pervasive role played by members of Iraq’s former Baathist army in an organization more typically associated with flamboyant foreign jihadists and the gruesome videos in which they star.

The Maliki government (and the Chalabi caretaker government before) that was formed after so much blood, sweat and tears actually turned out to be totally pro-Shia sectarian in nature. Iran played a huge role in deciding the political fate of Iraq. As a result the Maliki government's militias, security and intelligence routinely rounded up Sunnis and killed scores of Sunni villagers. The government looked the other way, as Sunni villages were deprived of electricity and water too in some cases. When ISIS came thundering into the country, many Sunni tribes agreed to them because the Maliki government was not helping. ISIS actually did provide a functioning state with water, electricity and even stability while at the same time carrying out crimes against humanity. Sure, quite a few Sunni tribes took up arms against ISIS but sadly resistance against daesh means a certain publicized, agonizing death. The people who carry out these executions and the ones killing, raping and destroying heritage sites are the true believers. They are not the pure opportunists. They really believe we are in end-times. Is the ISIS leadership made up of true-believers? Maybe, maybe not. But the end-times eschatology combined with Caliphate boner many Islamists has worked out wonders for their recruiting department. I guess that message resonated with the foot soldiers more than "Lets fight the Iraqi government, and after we're done we'll go back to Trenton, New Jersey". These guys don't believe in the Just Cause clause of UN charter. So you're right, they don't have objectives other than be a "good muslim". Their definition of good muslim is the one that kills an infidel (read: other muslim that does not like them) in the morning in a grand apocalyptic battle, rapes one at the night and goes to bed. I mean, the milligram experiment proves that people will do heinous things if you tell them to as long as you tell them they wont face a consequence. The people with real objectives are the leaders.

I disagree with the conclusion that laws should be judged by their enforcement. Laws need to be interpreted first and need to be revisited to arrive at a ruling for specific context. The sole job of muslim jurists in the old caliphates was to interpret the law and apply it to varying degrees of context. I'm not just talking about 'this dude stole sheep, his punishment is 10 lashes' interpretation, but also the rules of warfare and wartime rights. As an example, the famous muslim theologian and jurist Ibn Taymiyyah is most famous for his Fatwa of Mardin allowing the Caliph to fight against the belligerent Mongols who converted to Islam in namesake, but still followed the traditional Mongol Yassa law and were looking westward to expand their Ilkhanate. He interprets the law based on the circumstances because before him, the polity was having trouble. The law, which you may be inclined to agree, is not left to layperson to interpret otherwise we might as well appoint joe six-pack to the supreme court.

I guess there is always an official form of a thought, deviation of will result in extremes. In Islam the jurists and theologians always played a huge role when it came to interpreting the Quran, the Hadd punishments, or the Sunnah. Many laypeople see it as an exercise in frivolity, after all you don't need to be a PhD to interpret fairy tales. But that is not the case. Interpreting Quran is done by mufassirs, not layperson.

As was quoted earlier from Imâm ash-Shâfi’î (d.204 A.H.]: “It is impermissible for any person to give verdicts concerning the religion of Allâh, unless he is knowledgeable of the Book of Allâh, and its nâsikh from its mansûkh, and its muhkam from its mutashâbih, and its interpretation, and its process of revelation, and its makkî from its madanî, and its asbâb an-nuzûl. On top of this, he must be knowledgeable of the Sunnah…” [1]

ISIS skips all this boring stuff and goes straight to action because genuinely understanding the faith is least of their worries.

I'm genuinely glad you think so, and I wish denial of this wasn't so common among others.

It's a huge and difficult problem and not very easy to solve. But in order to solve a problem, one needs to recognize it first. Muslims have a hard time doing so.

 

[Azih]

ISIS members and sympathizers are often aware of the additional context posted in this thread and they don't seem too disturbed by it.

Perhaps this context isn't that clear, unambiguous, and compelling. Perhaps other context (like Muhammad's actual historical behaviour) outweighs it. Perhaps all ideologies are not exactly equal in their effects on human behaviour, and perhaps Islam might be more easily and more commonly interpreted to promote evil actions than, say, environmentalism or Buddhism or vegetarianism. Perhaps the existence of ecoterrorism, Buddhist persecution of Burmese Muslims, and vegetarian Hitler aren't good evidence that all beliefs cause all behaviours to precisely the same degree. Perhaps ISIS (and other similar movements such as Boko Haram) are related to Islam, even if there are other additional causes.

That's a whole hell of a lot of perhapses to try and cast Islam as uniquely evil. Enough of them to make the whole argument worthless.

I tried to avoid this thread because a whole hell of a lot of people even in a tolerant place like GAF have decided that there's just something fundamentally wrong with the weird oriental Islam business and nothing I say will make a lick of difference to that. But what the hell ever. I hate the idea of me and mine being looked at with suspicion for the rest of my life. This kind of bigotry will fade over time of course just like people looking at the Japanese funny did (there's just something wrong fundamentally with those Japs and their emperor worship, can't trust 'em) and I guess my people will have to ride it out just like they did. But in the meanwhile it's frustrating and horrible. I'll say this. Muslims became the minority it's idealogically acceptable to dehumanize and be suspicious of as a whole at a pretty damn tolerant time in history. Glad that times are better now than they were back during and after WWII. Still fucking sucks.

So here's the point. The theology of ISIS is not a throwback to anything. It is a very modern and radical reinterpretation of the faith of Islam that has nothing to do with the traditional consensus of either Sunni or Shia Islam (Edit: And has nothing to do with Sufi Islam either). This cannot and should not be ignored. But is. All the damn time.

 

[Baki]

Yes, my list of clear, direct quotes from the Qur'an clearly holds no relevance in addressing how ISIS fundamentalists are able to readily justify their atrocities in the name of god with a straight face, because we actually need this additional context from 1400 years ago. For reasons.

It depends, is your intention to suggest that the religion encourages these activities?

If so, then ofcourse it's important to make very clear the meaning of each direct quote through the context of its revelation. Because it's incredibly misleading to do otherwise.

.. Or were you trying to highlight some other point? I'd be interested to hear. For reasons, ofcourse

 

[beast786]

Now regarding slavery, it was a practice that existed before and during Islam began. It was a horrific practice that was core to the economy at the time. Islam began introducing laws to stop abuse of slaves and limit the creation of new slaves (e.g stopped practice of being born into slavery, capturing people and turning them into slaves) and elevating them to a status equivalent to normal people.

A lot of people wonder why it wasn't outright banned - but this is because people have the impression that Islam was a set of rules that was just revealed and then people were expected to immediately adhere to. The rules were introduced over a period of time to slowly change a barbaric society into a more civilised one. Therefore, slavery was a practice that had to be eradicated through a number of heavy regulations rather than an outright ban due to state of society of the time. It's also important that all the regulations were designed to stop abuse of slaves and significantly incentivise freeing slaves.
.

There was so much spinning of your whole post. But this part truly showed how to twist and spin to justify horrific slavery in Quran .

I like how you used economic reason to show why Islam and mo didn't straight up out law slavery as it was a key enconimic for the people. bull shit

If economic was such a factor in God ability to civilize Makkah . Then why did mo first attack was at the core of Makkah economics. Which was the exact reason for the first 3 wars and the reason quresh/makkahns wanted to shut mo down. Believing in only one God and destruction of all gods in Mecca . Those gods that brought trade through Mecca and without it Makkah would be just a nomad desert city.

Since you are into Hadith :

FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2
Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).

 

[EviLore]

It depends, is your intention to suggest that the religion encourages these activities?

If so, then ofcourse it's important to make very clear the meaning of each direct quote through the context of its revelation. Because it's incredibly misleading to do otherwise.

.. Or were you trying to highlight some other point? I'd be interested to hear. For reasons, ofcourse

Cultured, respectable Islamic scholars with a humanistic interpretation of the Qur'an did not come together and decide to found ISIS. Despicable assholes utilizing a religious text as a tool for advancing their agenda of rape, murder, and domination did. Nuances are lost in translation from the original Arabic? No doubt. There is historical context that clarifies the intent of some of the surahs quoted? I'm sure there is.

Is it extremely easy to point at straightforwardly written passages in the Qur'an to justify whatever rape and murder and enslavement of non-Muslims you take part in? Yes. Yes it is. A hell of a lot easier than studying Arabic for 20 years and medieval history for another 20 trying to reconcile an ancient book with modern values.

 

[RustyNails]

Cultured, respectable Islamic scholars with a humanistic interpretation of the Qur'an did not come together and decide to found ISIS. Despicable assholes utilizing a religious text as a tool for advancing their agenda of rape, murder, and domination did. Nuances are lost in translation from the original Arabic? No doubt. There is historical context that clarifies the intent of some of the surahs quoted? I'm sure there is.

Is it extremely easy to point at straightforwardly written passages in the Qur'an to justify whatever rape and murder and enslavement of non-Muslims you take part in? Yes. Yes it is. A hell of a lot easier than studying Arabic for 20 years and medieval history for another 20 trying to reconcile an ancient book with modern values.

But isn't this excusing ignorance though? Who's fault is it for not educating themselves about their own religion, the idiots or a piece of text? You don't even have to go to a modern 21st century US born ustadh (teacher) like Nouman Ali Khan that teach humanist values through Qur'an and Sunnah. Even leading, and by leading I mean at the very top of the pyramid's head of Sunni Orthodoxy itself like Yusuf al Qaradhawi or Abdallah bin Baiyyah have responded comprehensively against ISIS' actions in light of Islam, or even the Salafist HQ Grand mufti/Imam of grand mosque in Mecca Sheikh al as-Sheikh put out a statement calling them number 1 enemy of Islam (their wahabi export of Islam notwithstanding). I mean when Saudi Arabia calls you out, it's time to re-evaluate everything.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Guys this is all about power. Most of these dudes have had a taste of power that following this rapey interpretation of the quran gives usually as children and adolescents. Now that they've had a taste and now wield that power, they aren't go give it up when someone says "you're interpreting it wrong." As foul as the saying is "Kill'em all and let God sort'em out" seems to be the only solution to ISIS as you're going to have to pry that power from their cold dead hands.

 

[Sayah]

Cultured, respectable Islamic scholars with a humanistic interpretation of the Qur'an did not come together and decide to found ISIS. Despicable assholes utilizing a religious text as a tool for advancing their agenda of rape, murder, and domination did. Nuances are lost in translation from the original Arabic? No doubt. There is historical context that clarifies the intent of some of the surahs quoted? I'm sure there is.

Is it extremely easy to point at straightforwardly written passages in the Qur'an to justify whatever rape and murder and enslavement of non-Muslims you take part in? Yes. Yes it is. A hell of a lot easier than studying Arabic for 20 years and medieval history for another 20 trying to reconcile an ancient book with modern values.

The stuff you quoted from the Quran has specific context and can be understood if you read up on the commentary.

#1: Nothing you quoted from the Quran says anything about raping, in particular, which is the topic of this thread.
#2: The "slaying" is referring to acting in self-defense when you're being persecuted/attacked. It even says right in that very first verse you quoted to cease attack if persecution ends. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

It's entirely talking about self defense and isn't condoning random violence against non-believers.

I've even posted a myriad of different sources from Hadith/Quran that all are suggesting Muslims to end slavery.

Islam, during its birth, was an extremely progressive religion and for many centuries Muslims contributed to significant advances in science, mathematics, and other subjects.

With the arrival of Islam in 7th Century Arabia:
1. Islam abolished female infanticide, which was a common practice at the time.
2. Gave women the right to divorce
3. Gave women the right to own property
4. Gave women the right to vote
5. Gave women a right to education (made education an obligation for every Muslim, in fact).
6. Ended dowry given from the females family to the males during marriage. In fact, in reverse, made it obligatory for the male family to provide the female bride with "Mahr."
7. Right to work and own income.
And other rights.

For a woman to have these rights afforded them in the 7th Century is quite the accomplishment. Unfortunately, today, the majority of the Muslim world is in complete disorder and working in reverse of what it was in the past.

Even if you are a non-spiritual, non-religious individual and want to look at Islam from only a historical perspective (and not from a religious perspective), Islam accomplished a lot of great things.

 

[speculawyer]

Islam, during its birth, was an extremely progressive religion and for many centuries Muslims contributed to significant advances in science, mathematics, and other subjects.

With the arrival of Islam in 7th Century Arabia:
1. Islam abolished female infanticide, which was a common practice at the time.
2. Gave women the right to divorce
3. Gave women the right to own property
4. Gave women the right to vote
5. Gave women a right to education (made education an obligation for every Muslim, in fact).
6. Ended dowry given from the females family to the males during marriage. In fact, in reverse, made it obligatory for the male family to provide the female bride with "Mahr."
7. Right to work and own income.
And other rights.

For a woman to have these rights afforded them in the 7th Century is quite the accomplishment. Unfortunately, today, the majority of the Muslim world is in complete disorder and working in reverse of what it was in the past.

That is a great statement. They really were the best place for science way back then. But lately, they've become a bit of a mess. I hope they move back toward science.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Cultured, respectable Islamic scholars with a humanistic interpretation of the Qur'an did not come together and decide to found ISIS. Despicable assholes utilizing a religious text as a tool for advancing their agenda of rape, murder, and domination did. Nuances are lost in translation from the original Arabic? No doubt. There is historical context that clarifies the intent of some of the surahs quoted? I'm sure there is.

Is it extremely easy to point at straightforwardly written passages in the Qur'an to justify whatever rape and murder and enslavement of non-Muslims you take part in? Yes. Yes it is. A hell of a lot easier than studying Arabic for 20 years and medieval history for another 20 trying to reconcile an ancient book with modern values.

Quran already tells us whose heart is perverted and whose is not when it says those who want to create discord, as in less peace in land or prejudice or hate of people and ideas of peace will because they are inherently or coerced into it always believe or accept the interpretation which is meant for discord, want less peace in land, is prejudiced and hates all people and love ideas of war. And those who think the opposite will go with the true interpretation. In essence this is why ISIS and those people who believe Isis interpretation to be valid as per Quran have perversity in their hearts as they twist words and meanings to mean war when it means peace just as an example

Quran 3:8

[3:8] He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding

The Holy Prophet of Islam (saw) predicted this would happen

I relate the traditions of Allah's Messenger (&#65018 to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Messenger (&#65018 saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection."
Sahih Bukhari


Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (&#65018 as saying:
Verily there would arise from my Ummah after me or soon after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures. Ibn Samit (one of the narrators) said: I met Rafi' b. 'Amr Ghifari, the brother of Al-Hakam Ghifari and I said: What is this hadith that I heard from Abu Dharr, i. e. so and so? and then I narrated that hadith to him and said: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (&#65018.
Sahih Muslim


'Ali said:
Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (&#65018 believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (&#65018 as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.
Sahih Muslim


"If you see the black flags *, then remain on the ground and do not move a hand or a leg.
A group of feeble folk to whom no concern is given will then appear - their hearts are like iron [1].
They are the owners of the state [2].
They fulfill neither a contract nor a covenant [3].
They call to the truth, but they are not its people [4].
Their names are a kuniya (their leaders name will start with Abu meaning Father of) and their lineage (surnames) are a town [5].
Their hair is unwinding, like the hair of a women [6].
(Do this) until they differ in it between themselves, then Allah will give the right to whomever HE desires."
Kitab Al Fatan


Critics/Extremists: Islam tells Muslims to fight non-believers
“And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 194

This verse refers to the time of when this verse was revealed when Islam was in its infancy and Muslims were fighting were their lives. The fight them is only a defensive reaction to an aggressive action and it also refers to defending yourself with the pen and not just defend yourself physically. It also clearly states UNTIL there is no persecution whereby the defending should stop and good relations should continue and be established the moment aggression against you stops. This is reiterated again when it says if those attacking you verbally or physically stop attacking you, any Muslim should never become the aggressor. This is proven also if you expand the context using the verse before this.
“And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 191

The ultimate goal thus is to attain peace and never be the aggressor. If everyone avoids being transgressions, there would never be war.

Now lets discuss how some critics of Islam purposely manipulate the sequence of the Quranic verses to create the false impression that Islam promotes Murder of non-believers. Take the verse below:
“And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 192

The word Fitnah in this verse does not believe a person's basic disbelief. it refers to persecution in the form of forcing a person to disbelieve by oppressing people or forcing people to change their view about their faith. Quran here mentions that forcing a view against their belief is worse than the aggressor killing the oppressed as it is akin to persecution and torture. This also proves the impression that Quran is against forced change or removal of a belief of a person against his or her will. by singling out this verse the critics of Islam try (and fail) to create the impression that Quran is saying disbelief (single tense) is worse than killing.

Here is the sequence of verses from Surah Al-Baqarah

verse 191 says fight those who fight against you but dont be aggressors. clearly stating a fight should ONLY be defensive
verse 192 continues from 191 and says fight them because their persecution is worse than killing and then it repeats the message of 191 again by saying if they fight you, then fight them.
verse 193 continues and says if they stop fighting you then God is merciful, this is a hint that you should lay your weapons down at that point
verse 194 continues and says:
“And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 194

Notice the Quran says fight them until there is no persecution and religion is FREELY professed for God which is a tie in to the fact that any religion can only be FREELY practiced if there is no persecution against it. and then it repeats the peaceful message again, that if they stop persecuting you or fighting against you, that NO hostility is allowed against anyone except those who are aggressors against your free right to practice your faith.
And then verse 195 continues and says
“The violation of a Sacred Month should be retaliated in the Sacred Month; and for all sacred things there is the law of retaliation. So, whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.”
— Surah Al Baqarah 195

Clearly stating that if someone tries to persecute you, do not exceed the bounds of the limits of retaliation which means if a person mocks you or ridicules you or takes the Quran away from you, No Muslim has the right to physically assault him as it clearly says, punish him for his transgression TO THE EXTENT to which he has transgressed against you. If someone writes against you, you defend your faith by writing defense of your faith against the aggressors.
Another verse the critics and extremists prove that Islam tells Muslims to fight and kill disbelievers as a blanket statement is the following verse
“They wish that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you may become all alike. Take not, therefore, friends from among them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah. And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and take no friend nor helper from among them”
— Surah Al-Nisa 90

however if you read the very next verse...
“Except those who are connected with a people between whom and you there is a pact, or those who come to you, while their hearts shrink from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had so pleased, He would have given them power over you, then they would have surely fought you. So, if they keep aloof from you and fight you not, and make you an offer of peace, then remember that Allah has allowed you no way of aggression against them.”
— Surah Al-Nisa 91

Yet another proof is provided that Muslims are not allowed to be aggressive against any party of people who want peace.

This is what Quran is clear about :
“There is no good in many of their conferences except the conferences of such as enjoin charity, or goodness, or the making of peace among men. And whoso does that, seeking the pleasure of Allah, We shall soon bestow on him a great reward.”
— Surah Al-Nisa 115
Does ISIS or extremist groups follow this ?

And if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust in Allah. Surely, it is He Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”
Surah Al-Anfal 62
Does ISIS or extremist groups follow this ?

Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed”
Surah Al Nahl 91
Does ISIS or extremist groups follow this ?



If you read the Quran you WOULD know that sex is only allowed after marriage, it is very strict about that. It is also clear that any person cannot be forced into sex thus rape is a sin. Any Muslim cannot have sex outside of marriage as per the Quran itself

 

[Sayah]

That is a great statement. They really were the best place for science way back then. But lately, they've become a bit of a mess. I hope they move back toward science.

Yeah, I hope so too.

 

[Duji]

But isn't this excusing ignorance though? Who's fault is it for not educating themselves about their own religion, the idiots or a piece of text? You don't even have to go to a modern 21st century US born ustadh (teacher) like Nouman Ali Khan that teach humanist values through Qur'an and Sunnah. Even leading, and by leading I mean at the very top of the pyramid's head of Sunni Orthodoxy itself like Yusuf al Qaradhawi or Abdallah bin Baiyyah have responded comprehensively against ISIS' actions in light of Islam, or even the Salafist HQ Grand mufti/Imam of grand mosque in Mecca Sheikh al as-Sheikh put out a statement calling them number 1 enemy of Islam (their wahabi export of Islam notwithstanding). I mean when Saudi Arabia calls you out, it's time to re-evaluate everything.

Who can blame them when the Quran itself claims to be easy to understand? 54:17

 

[Sutton Dagger]

The stuff you quoted from the Quran has specific context and can be understood if you read up on the commentary.

#1: Nothing you quoted from the Quran says anything about raping, in particular, which is the topic of this thread.
#2: The "slaying" is referring to acting in self-defense when you're being persecuted/attacked. It even says right in that very first verse you quoted to cease attack if persecution ends. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

It's entirely talking about self defense and isn't condoning random violence against non-believers.

I've even posted a myriad of different sources from Hadith/Quran that all are suggesting Muslims to end slavery.

Islam, during its birth, was an extremely progressive religion and for many centuries Muslims contributed to significant advances in science, mathematics, and other subjects.

With the arrival of Islam in 7th Century Arabia:
1. Islam abolished female infanticide, which was a common practice at the time.
2. Gave women the right to divorce
3. Gave women the right to own property
4. Gave women the right to vote
5. Gave women a right to education (made education an obligation for every Muslim, in fact).
6. Ended dowry given from the females family to the males during marriage. In fact, in reverse, made it obligatory for the male family to provide the female bride with "Mahr."
7. Right to work and own income.
And other rights.

For a woman to have these rights afforded them in the 7th Century is quite the accomplishment. Unfortunately, today, the majority of the Muslim world is in complete disorder and working in reverse of what it was in the past.

Even if you are a non-spiritual, non-religious individual and want to look at Islam from only a historical perspective (and not from a religious perspective), Islam accomplished a lot of great things.

Specifically in regards to your second point, it's incredibly easy to interpret various events around the world as an 'attack on Islam' and thus the 'slaying' of the 'aggressors' (anyone who opposes their brand of Islam), is seen as valid (to them). We're talking about religious fanatics who view their cause as sanctioned by Allah, they can very easily interpret verses to suit their agenda, just as those who promote progressive ideas within the text do. My statement says nothing about who is right/wrong in their interpretation, just that there is more than one way to read a verse.

 

[Sayah]

Specifically in regards to your second point, it's incredibly easy to interpret various events around the world as an 'attack on Islam' and thus the 'slaying' of the 'aggressors' (anyone who opposes their brand of Islam), is seen as valid (to them). We're talking about religious fanatics who view their cause as sanctioned by Allah, they can very easily interpret verses to suit their agenda, just as those who promote progressive ideas within the text do. My statement says nothing about who is right/wrong in their interpretation, just that there are more than one way to read a verse.

You're right.
People will interpret things to fit their own agendas. I suppose (playing devil's advocate), the invasion of Iraq, the stuff going on in Palestine, and ongoing drone attacks can be considered "aggression" by these militant people.

But even so, that doesn't justify rape and slavery. Slavery was permitted for a time in Islam but is effectively illegal in modern Islam and you can't "bring it back." In fact, prisoners of war have rights of their own. I suggest everyone to read up on how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated in Islam. Wikipedia.

If ISIS was really out to "follow Islam loyally," they would be doing what's being said in the religious text. Prisoners of war are supposed to be respected, fed, clothed, and treated with dignity. Not raped, tortured, and humiliated. Not to mention a good chunk (majority?) of ISIS victims are Muslims themselves. And Muslims at large (worldwide) are condemning this group regardless so ISIS isn't really representing or fighting on behalf of "oppressed" Muslims worldwide.

 

[Kabouter]

Even if you are a non-spiritual, non-religious individual and want to look at Islam from only a historical perspective (and not from a religious perspective), Islam accomplished a lot of great things.

This to me is little different from a British person saying that the British Empire accomplished a lot of great things. Yes, after conquest and the unspeakable human tragedy that inevitably came with that, sometimes the new situation was better than the old in certain ways. Yay.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The frustrating part is that ISIS wants to be attacked. ISIS was created in large part by war in the Middle East. If we attacked them now, we would probably see more people radicalize, due partly to incidents of unprovoked violence by soldiers against civilians. ISIS is also so much more difficult to combat than a government. Like was said earlier, ISIS is all over the place, you can't just strike military bases or whatever, collateral damage (another thing that could provoke civilians) is almost necessary to really hurt ISIS.