Support NeoGAF

[Stereogatari]

Not really, Traditional Islamic law (as in the four main schools of Sunni law) does not condone ISIS type behavior at all. The kind of philosophy that ISIS types follow have their roots in the seventeenth and eighteenth century reformers. Rashid Rida and Muhammad Ibn abd Al-Wahhab (the guys who define ISIS, Al-Qaeda type ideology) broke from traditional Sunni Islam really hard. That nuance and historical truth is completely lost as people rush to and get wedded to a narrative of Islam 'always being this way'. Bringing it up gets me accused of being an apologist.

I'm not only talking about ISIS, but the backwardsness of Islamic majority countries in general.

In the West people can live whatever lifestyle they want more or less without hassle, no "Christian" morals. In Muslim majority countries "Islamic" morals still dominate. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[ruttyboy]

But you don't even have any quotes to back up what you're saying about what they're saying. I do. If you really think "politically correct, embarrassed, cotton candy view not aware of historical legal requirements of the religion" isn't casting moderates as less faithful muslim then I have no idea what words would.

I don't really need any quotes, I have a large article which is the subject of the thread that proves my assertions about the article through simple reading comprehension. Not being confrontational, but have you read the article in its entirety?

Again I say that the point of the article (and remember I'm only talking about the article) is not about who is a more faithful Muslim. If there is a comparison in the article, it is about who is adhering more closely to an interpretation of Islam and a way of life from the distant past. By definition modern moderate Muslims are going to lose in that comparison, but that is a GOOD THING.

The cotton candy statement is referring to the very understandable reaction of modern people, who hold a faith dearly, when they are confronted with some of the (by today's standards) more abhorrent aspects of the culture from which they have grown (which the author is claiming ISIS represent and have brought to people's attention).

The thought process goes that they have been told their entire life that their faith is a force for good, so "how could such things be associated with it?" It's a symptom of people's lack of knowledge about history, a lack of perspective, not of how faithful they may or may not be.

This isn't just an Islamic thing. For example, imagine a modern day lovey dovey Christian, one who is convinced that their faith is only pure good because they and the people in their congregation preach and practise only benevolence and acceptance.

Most importantly they have done no research whatsoever as to the sociological history of their own faith*, about the realities of the faith pre-1,900AD, how the Church used to act, how the scripture was interpreted and what customs were followed using the Bible as justification.

Now when said person is confronted with the historical reality of the Church, what is the natural neurological reaction of a 'true believer'? It's to deny, it's to dis-believe.

That is what he means by people having a 'cotton candy' view of Islam, that because something so important to them is good now, it couldn't have been bad in the past, surely? How could something so important, something that they believe is literally the way that God wants you to act be so different?


* A sadly common trait for people of all religion

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

1. I've said I don't believe there is any punishment for apostasy in Islam. For adultery if the Quranic principles are followed than the lashing punishments would almost never actually happen due to the absurdly high standard of proof required so I'd be fine with that. Saudi/Afghanistan etc don't hold to those standards.

YOU said that "Islam is pretty clear that you should follow the laws of the land". Let's assume for argument's sake that the absurdly high standard of proof required to prove adultery is met (this is a whole other can of worms for another thread perhaps), then would you approve of whatever barbaric punishment is applied according to the law of the land?

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

I'm not asking you to judge anything. If God sentences the offender to eternal damnation in Hell, are you okay with this? Such an eternal punishment fits the earthly crime?

 

[Azih]

YOU said that "Islam is pretty clear that you should follow the laws of the land". Let's assume for argument's sake that the absurdly high standard of proof required to prove adultery is met (this is a whole other can of worms for another thread perhaps), then would you approve of whatever barbaric punishment is applied according to the law of the land?

I expect people to follow the laws of the country they live in. Yes. Don't you? There's also a lot in Islam about working against injustice. So if a place has unjust laws (like for example Nigeria, Saudi, Taliban-Afghanistan, my own country of Pakistan with its nonsense blasphemy laws) then it's a part of Islam to work to change that as well.

The lashing penalty for adultery requiring four eye witnesses seems to me to not be injustice. I also have no interest in having anything remotely like that implemented where I currently live (Canada).

I'm not asking you to judge anything. If God sentences the offender to eternal damnation in Hell, are you okay with this? Such an eternal punishment fits the earthly crime?

I'm not going to pretend to know what the judgements of an omnipotent, omniscient being will be. I'm also not going to question the decisions of an omnipotent, omniscient being. So yeah if that's god's judgement on Judgement day then it will be what it is.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

The lashing penalty for adultery requiring four eye witnesses seems to me to not be injustice. I also have no interest in having anything remotely like that implemented where I currently live (Canada).

I'm sorry, are you saying that you think being whipped is an acceptable punishment for adultery if the hypothetical requirements are met?

 

[Azih]

I don't really need any quotes, I have a large article which is the subject of the thread that proves my assertions about the article through simple reading comprehension. Not being confrontational, but have you read the article in its entirety?

Yes. And I know what Haykel thinks about how closely I follow Islam versus how closely ISIS follow Islam. I don't come off well in the comparision. There's also comments from gaffers that I keep pointing to that you that you don't seem to want to address either. The article didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[adamYUKI]

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

No doubt, education and economic conditions do play a role, but you might be overstating their effects when compared to rigidity and conservatism of the ideology of Islam itself. I just saw this article a few minutes ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinion/bergen-terrorism-root-causes/index.html

Some interesting quotes:

These are not the dispossessed. They are the empowered.

"Who becomes a terrorist?" turns out, in many cases, to be much like asking, "Who owns a Volvo?"

Indeed, New America has studied the backgrounds of some 250 U.S.-based militants since 9/11 who have been indicted in or convicted of some kind of jihadist terrorist crime. They are on average middle class, reasonably well-educated family men with kids. They are, in short, ordinary Americans.

Similarly, in his important 2004 book "Understanding Terror Networks," psychiatrist Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer, examined the backgrounds of 172 militants who were part of al Qaeda or a similar group. Just under half were professionals; two-thirds were either middle or upper class and had gone to college; indeed, several had doctorates.

In a 2006 study, Swati Pandey and this author examined the educational background of 79 terrorists responsible for five of the worst anti-Western terrorist attacks of the modern era -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, the Bali nightclub bombings in 2002, and the London bombings on July 7, 2005.

We found that more than half of the terrorists had attended college, making them as well-educated as the average American. Two of our sample had doctoral degrees, and two others had begun working toward their doctorates.

None of them had attended a madrassa.

 

[curlyfriski]

This article makes some good criticisms of the Atlantic piece, especially the choice of experts: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defines-real-islam-says-isis/

 

[RustyNails]

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

Simple comprehension using your own words might help:

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll give you that your position did not change. I apologize. But I'm not stuck on doctrine bro, if anyone needs self-reflection it isn't me. Try to reflect for a second that instead of blaming ISIS for their lack of absolutely basic thinking skills, you are blaming the text for...being a text, and all that it entails. It's a long-winded attempt at censorship in lieu of least common denominator, i.e, lets leave out complicated stuff (which is not complicated above 5th grade English, really) because the idiots will never get it. Now, is it pertinent to bark at the text, which the majority of the population understands and accepts within it's context, in favor of people because they have politicized it? Or is it more appropriate to call out people that have cherry picked the literal translation with nary an understanding of what the text is actually talking about? I can pull out any nasty stuff from any book that remotely deals with war. That's just the nature of the subject. I see nothing wrong with the terms of a truce being upheld and maintained in two squabbling, fractious societies at war with each other for 7 or 8 years. But that is besides the point. Quran gets much more complicated because it is so context heavy. Every chapter is labeled either Meccan or Medinan, and it's background is described. It's part of the theology to ascertain the correct context. I'm not denying what the text says, absolutely not. I'm simply framing it in context, which is the correct way of reading it.

=================
Chapter 2 191-193
2 : 191 Abdul Daryabadi : And slay them wheresoever ye come upon them, and drive them out whence they drove you out; and temptation is more grievous than slaughter. And fight them not near the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein, but if they get ready to fight you there, then slay them. That is the meed of the infidels.

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

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



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

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

Oh are we playing the game where you copy-paste out of context verses, and I sit around explaining to you their context? Why not just google those verses? It's clear that I've explained to you what chapter 9 was dealing with, which was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and other treaties with other tribes. So now you have nowhere to go, you went to google and picked out a few more such verses in other places in hopes that I might get stumbled...nice attempt, but I'm not playing your game. Go to a mosque and ask an Imam or someone. I only explained to you chapter 9 because you clearly had no inkling of an understanding of the text. Why absolutely matters. It matters 100%. If the directive was without any context, I'd be already on your side. But the context is there, and unfortunately for you it's a pretty specific one. The plan basically has always been to read things in context. If you or ISIS fail to do it, then it's your problem for lacking the thinking skills, not the text. If you fail a test, you don't get to blame the textbook.

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


Also, yes, I know the story of Jesus' return. I mentioned the idea of judgement on his return in the post your responded to... :/

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

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

In any case, I do not want to make this a confrontational thing.
I just believe the more self reflection about doctrines and beliefs, the better. I think people should have the right to do so, and that it can be helpful. I also like to believe there are pieces of philosophy from all religious texts that have value and can be meaningful.

It's Gabriel delivering the words of Allah to Muhammad. Qur'an simply means "the recitation". There is not a single interjection from Muhammad in the Qur'an, as he is just the messenger. Every command to uphold a treaty, or dissolve it in response to breaking of oaths, to distribute spoils, etc, everything is coming from God. Muslims believe all the prophets' roles were different based on differing situations they lived in. It is such a weird point for you to belabor. Did Moses fight any battles? Yes. Did Ishmael fight any battles? no. Did Jacob fight any battles? No. Did David fight battles? Yes. Did Jesus fight any battles? No. Did Muhammad fight any battles? Yes. If you haven't gotten it by now, Muslims believe in ALL the prophets equally, not just the one that preceded Muhammad (Jesus). All the prophets had their own way of dealing with things, and all the prophets preached the same things: God is one. Jesus is special, as he is the only prophet that did not die (in Muslim opinion), but was raised up. Also, I didn't say Jesus philosophy is "one of the sword", but simply, his message is not as hippy-centric as you make it out to be. If you already know what Jesus' role is in Islamic eschatology, why are you even asking the question? You know that Jesus is coming to lead an army against Anti-Christ and wage war and all that stuff. It's in line with Muslims' views, and frankly, its a rather silly notion that won't be convincing to anyone.

Not sure what the stuff of Kalki is doing in your post, but please spare me the attempts at dissuasion. I'm being sincere. I'm not here to persuade you out of your beliefs (or lack thereof), I've been respectful, and I did not try to sell you anything so I expect you to do the same.

 

[unpopularblargh]

ThinkProgress did a pair of follow up articles to The Atlantic. I'd highly recommend people give them a look through.

thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam/

“That’s very problematic to anyone who spends any of their time dealing with the diversity of interpretations around texts,” Lamptey said. “Texts have never been only interpreted literally. They have always been interpreted in multiple ways — and that’s not a chronological thing, that’s been the case from the get-go … [Wood’s comments] create the [impression] that Islam is literalistic, backward-minded, and kind of arcane or archaic, and we’ve moved past that narrative.”

Lamptey also said that Wood’s argument overlooks other Quranic verses that, if taken literally, would contradict ISIS’s actions because “they promote equality, tolerance.” She pointed to surah 22:39-40 in the Qur’an, which connects the permission for war with the need to protect the houses of worship of other religions — something ISIS, which has destroyed several Christian churches, clearly ignores.

“ISIS exegetes these verses away I am sure, but that’s the point,” she said. “It’s not really about one perspective being literal, one being legitimate, one ignoring things…it’s about diverse interpretations. But alternative ones tend to not gain any footing with this kind of black-and-white rhetoric. It completely delegitimizes them.”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/

“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of a very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”
He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.
“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”

Haykel’s position also helped explain several problematic constructions and omissions in Wood’s article. At one point, for instance, Wood quotes Haykel as saying, “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid.” The journalist then adds the following conclusion: “That really would be an act of apostasy.”

The implication, according to many who read the piece, is that ISIS’s theology is founded in Islamic texts that cannot be debated. Haykel, however, clarified that while he saw ISIS as rooted in authentic Islamic texts, those texts are not above interpretation, and it is only ISIS and related groups — not Islam as a whole — who would consider such challenges apostasy.

 

[TrojanBlade]

Found this article. Very interesting.

ISIS-Israel connection

“In a new report from the UN, it is revealed that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were maintaining regular contact with members of the so-called Islamic State since May of 2013. Initial reports from the IDF stated that this was only for medical care for civilians, but that story fell apart when the UN observers identified direct contact between IDF forces and ISIS soldiers, including giving medical care to ISIS fighters. Observations even included the transfer of two crates from the IDF to ISIS forces, the contents of which have not been confirmed at this time. Further the UN report identified what the Syrians label a crossing point of forces between Israel and ISIS, a point of concern brought before the UN Security Council. This report from the UN strengthens the claims by the Syrian regime that Israel is heavily involved in operations within the nation.”

This is part of a continuing pattern of Israeli support for the Islamic State. It was only two months ago that Israel attacked Syrian forces in opposition to ISIS forces. Israeli attacks even killed an Iranian military adviser for the Syrian military just two weeks ago. The U.S.’s financing of ISIS, part of the effort against Syrian president Assad, is well documented, as well. That the efforts to undermine the Assad regime were in turn strengthening the same terrorist group which recently set a Jordanian pilot on fire to set an example is conveniently ignored by the higher up military command.

In effect, there is no side to support here, as each side is being supported at once in opposition to the other side. By enabling the creation of ISIS, we have taken an already unstable situation and poured gasoline over it. Now we are facing a true threat, not from ISIS or Iran or Syria, but against our own arrogance. We have been blinded to the death and destruction created by our actions in the Middle East.

We once were respected throughout the region, as neutral peace-brokers, the nation which oversaw the breakup of the Barbary pirates and a country which became eternal friends with the people of Iran when all of Europe ignored them. Now we are Israel’s expected muscle, to carry out their dirty work in an effort to destabilize the region and de-power those the tiny nation views as a threat. They will support anyone, if it meets a short-term goal, even if the result is a plot more complex and ridiculous than an episode of “Passions. This can, and will cost them long-term.

More at the article. Hopefully people stop believing the one sided story they are being fed through Fox, CNN etc. Things are not so black and white. The sad part is UN and US govt. protects Israel for its open crimes and are complacent with the crimes it commits. No one really cares about the average person or justice in this world or actually stopping the horrendous acts committed by these groups.

 

[Dugna]

Found this article. Very interesting.

ISIS-Israel connection



More at the article. Hopefully people stop believing the one sided story they are being fed through Fox, CNN etc. Things are not so black and white. The sad part is UN and US govt. protects Israel for its open crimes and are complacent with the crimes it commits. No one really cares about the average person or justice in this world or actually stopping the horrendous acts committed by these groups.

Where is the actual source? Like the site links to another site where it says there was a UN report yet it doesn't link to anything official like a UN govt website or a official speech or anything like that. It's just saying "Israel is evil and is ISIS, here is no proof but hey UN said it magically."

 

[maquiladora]

Turkish journalists are reporting that around 40 Turkish armored vehicles & tanks have crossed into Syria and are heading to the Suleiman Shah tomb.

 

[RustyNails]

Turkish journalists are reporting that around 40 Turkish armored vehicles & tanks have crossed into Syria and are heading to the Suleiman Shah tomb.

That's one way to goad Turkey into fighting them.

 

[maquiladora]

Found this article. Very interesting.

ISIS-Israel connection



More at the article. Hopefully people stop believing the one sided story they are being fed through Fox, CNN etc. Things are not so black and white. The sad part is UN and US govt. protects Israel for its open crimes and are complacent with the crimes it commits. No one really cares about the average person or justice in this world or actually stopping the horrendous acts committed by these groups.

"21stcenturynewswire" eh? Their "as seen on" list boasts links to Reptilian advocates, UFO conspiracy theorists, doomsday preppers and state propaganda networks... in other words, lol10.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Right from the beginning the Think Progress article has some significant problems with projecting:

He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.

He isn't claiming that. His point was that similar to how secular Christians in the modern world are forced to adapt to say, gay rights, Muslims in the modern world are forced to adapt and/or ignore some (Read: Not all) aspects of their faith which wouldn't be considered acceptable anymore. Both faiths left the door open for slavery for instance.

 

[TrojanBlade]

"21stcenturynewswire" eh? Their "as seen on" list boasts links to Reptilian advocates, UFO conspiracy theorists, doomsday preppers and state propaganda networks... in other words, lol10.

LOL and you guys think the mainstream media will cover stuff like that or even try to investigate these kinds of reports...yeah if its not on CNN, BBC, Fox, Times etc the most trustworthy sources in the world, it has to be conspiracy theory.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/1207/UN-reports-Israeli-support-for-Syria-rebels

 

[Polari]

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

With ISIS this might be true (I really don't know). However, you look at Egypt, and Islamists there stemmed from academia - particularly science and medicine.

 

[Dugna]

LOL and you guys think the mainstream media will cover stuff like that or even try to investigate these kinds of reports...yeah if its not on CNN, BBC, Fox, Times etc the most trustworthy sources in the world, it has to be conspiracy theory.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/1207/UN-reports-Israeli-support-for-Syria-rebels

My only problem is the site you linked didn't source where it got its UN speech, I mean was looking for a link everywhere on that site that lead to something that's legit UN and nothing. They just said it happened it showed no proof.

EDIT: Finally looked over your new link and it still didn't say anything about them handing them weapons mostly just about they said they're doing, which is doing medical care. Only hint of anything was that box trading but even that is fuzzy since they don't know what was in those boxes from the report.

 

[The Names M]

I have a video here I'd like to share with GAF and hope for some feedback from you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAJ86yKQT6U

I'm from amongst lurkerGAF and post here mostly with topics relating to Islam. From my time here lurking about on this forum, I can see there are many intelligent/intellectual folks here. There are also some who like speaking out of their asses. *insert fart noises here*
Both sides are welcome to voice their opinions, even the funny fart noises.

Excuse my terrible sense of humor and cheesy user name I made along time ago back in high school.

 

[archnemesis]

47m is quite long and it would be easier to discuss the video if you summarized the parts that you thought are relevant for this topic.

 

[MisterFalcon]

I have a video here I'd like to share with GAF and hope for some feedback from you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAJ86yKQT6U

I'm from amongst lurkerGAF and post here mostly with topics relating to Islam. From my time here lurking about on this forum, I can see there are many intelligent/intellectual folks here. There are also some who like speaking out of their asses. *insert fart noises here*
Both sides are welcome to voice their opinions, even the funny fart noises.

Excuse my terrible sense of humor and cheesy user name I made along time ago back in high school.

6 and a half minutes in and the worst form of extremism is apparently thinking too much.

 

[The Names M]

6 and a half minutes in and the worst form of extremism is apparently thinking too much.

See this is the problem, jumping to conclusions when you haven't even watched the whole thing. If you saw at least 30 seconds more of that video you would have understood what he said.

Apparently, your assumption is wrong. He actually says that the worst form of extremism is shirk/kufr, not thinking too much.

 

[Stereogatari]

Just read the article fully. Very very good. Muslim organisations need to be open about the fact ISIS is using scholarly backing for their actions. Their actions are predictable, they aren't just crazies doimg random stuff and justifying it afterwards. The sweeping under the rug of "they're not true Muslims" doesn't help acknowledge the problem extremist idealogy can pose to young impressionable religious Muslims or new converts.

 

[Chuckie]

Found this article. Very interesting.

ISIS-Israel connection



More at the article. Hopefully people stop believing the one sided story they are being fed through Fox, CNN etc. Things are not so black and white. The sad part is UN and US govt. protects Israel for its open crimes and are complacent with the crimes it commits. No one really cares about the average person or justice in this world or actually stopping the horrendous acts committed by these groups.