Support NeoGAF

[Oppo]

I mean if you're into theology then fine you can have great fun conversations between people who're looking for a good discussion about the Quran rather than to fight internet holy wars and you can still do that between friends. But there are far more important issues that need to be dealt with and sadly on a message board people holy warriors who want to win an argument rather than have a conversation will always dominate.

just because maninthemirror posts anything that takes a potshot at Bill Maher or Sam Harris doesn't mean you have to call him a holy warrior.

...that is what you meant, yes?

 

[DonasaurusRex]

the weirdest thing is non-muslims constantly trying to engage in Islamic theology.

whats weird about that? it happens all the time in religious studies, to all religions, why would islam be different? Someone has to be muslim before you can undertake studying the islamic faith?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

whats weird about that? it happens all the time in religious studies, to all religions, why would islam be different? Someone has to be muslim before you can undertake studying the islamic faith?

I mentioned this on the last page, you don't need to believe but you can't debate theology without some shared assumptions.

You need to have some fundamental assumptions to, in good faith, engage in theology. You don't have to believe said religions but you can't come into a christian thread arguing Jesus wasn't the savoir of mankind. Or into an Islamic thread saying Muhammad didn't write God's word in the quran. (there are some elements in each believe system that do debate these things but other assumptions are shared.)

 

[Mrmartel]

You need to have some fundamental assumptions to, in good faith, engage in theology. You don't have to believe said religions but you can't come into a christian thread arguing Jesus wasn't the savoir of mankind. Or into an Islamic thread saying Muhammad didn't write God's word in the quran. (there are some elements in each believe system that do debate these things but other assumptions are shared.)

I think it should equally apply to all religions. And its not to say people can't voice their opinion its all hogwash but lots of it reads like cherry-picked quotes which conform to the point they want to make but ignore the many assumptions, shared experiences, etc that believers share and bring to debates. Its just annoying and contributes nothing to any real understanding IMO its poor grandstanding that just is sounds like smug superiority

I agree with you on that point. But religious folks on Neogaf are strangers in a strange land. I would peg this board as solidly agnostic/Atheist (Most are Theological poseurs or light weights at best) . Unless there is some silent majority lurking in the shadows.

Anyways I say good luck to anyone trying to have a constructive discussion about religion in these parts.

 

[G.ZZZ]

No true scotmans everywhere. You can't define scientifically wheter a person is islamic or not, so the only thing you can do is take face value. Same for any religion. Debating about "true" muslims is about as stupid as debating how angels have sex.

People unable to accept this simple truth are simply too invested in their orthodoxy of religion to see it, and are by definition extremists and are commiting an act of violence and divide toward all of the others pratictioners because they actually believe they are superior to them (and usually mask this declaration behind a wall of sweet words and "it's in the text it's not me saying that blablablablabla").

 

[Cromat]

This is such a boring argument that completely distracts from the actual issue. Any religion can be used to justify anything. You can have the most peaceful, pleasant and tolerant lifestyle based on the Quran or the Bible, or you can have the most hateful and violent. The real subject here is the ideology of Political Islam, which is the dominant ideology in the Arab world.

 

[block tower]

No true scotmans everywhere. You can't define scientifically wheter a person is islamic or not, so the only thing you can do is take face value. Same for any religion. Debating about "true" muslims is about as stupid as debating how angels have sex.

People unable to accept this simple truth are simply too invested in their orthodoxy of religion to see it, and are by definition extremists and are commiting an act of violence and divide toward all of the others pratictioners because they actually believe they are superior to them (and usually mask this declaration behind a wall of sweet words and "it's in the text it's not me saying that blablablablabla").

basically.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I mentioned this on the last page, you don't need to believe but you can't debate theology without some shared assumptions.

well of course all debate requires some common ground, but if one person viewed God as everything or pan-theistic and yet another as monotheistic but non personal so deistic, and yet another person theistic completely transcendant then you are still able to find some common ground. What is stopping someone from being informed about the assumptions of another faith and then reasoning an argument between the various views?

 

[Maninthemirror]

No true scotmans everywhere. You can't define scientifically wheter a person is islamic or not, so the only thing you can do is take face value. Same for any religion. Debating about "true" muslims is about as stupid as debating how angels have sex.

People unable to accept this simple truth are simply too invested in their orthodoxy of religion to see it, and are by definition extremists and are commiting an act of violence and divide toward all of the others pratictioners because they actually believe they are superior to them (and usually mask this declaration behind a wall of sweet words and "it's in the text it's not me saying that blablablablabla").

Except when the islamic text defines what is the responsibly is as a muslim in life. Don't know why people ignore it or chose to pick and chose verses to redefine the definition

 

[Oppo]

This is such a boring argument that completely distracts from the actual issue. Any religion can be used to justify anything. You can have the most peaceful, pleasant and tolerant lifestyle based on the Quran or the Bible, or you can have the most hateful and violent. The real subject here is the ideology of Political Islam, which is the dominant ideology in the Arab world.

I agree.

I went looking for some further reading on ISIS and came across this article. I wondered if perhaps our resident followers of the faith could chime in on what they think of this theory.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/analysis-fifth-caliph-isis-looking-history-understand-present/197829/

Speaking to Marwa Osman on the Iraqi TV network Aletejah, Dr. Akl Kairouz noted that the wave of terror confronting the Arab world since 2011, this almost religious philosophy of war to which countries like Syria and Iraq have fallen victim to, is rooted in Middle Eastern history during a fight between what has been described as “good vs. evil.”

The professor compared ISIS’ advances in the greater Levant to that of Muawiyah’s campaigns – the founder of the Umayyad dynasty – in the 7th century. It is important to note that from an Islamic standpoint, Muawiyah’s actions contradict the spirit of Islam, not only legally but religiously.

“Looking at ISIS and how its leadership envisions war as a base upon which its ideology will be disseminated to the region and ultimately the world, it is clear that the group has drawn its inspiration from Muawiyah … the same patterns of violence, the same blind desire to impose one’s faith over unwitting communities, the same exclusive ideology and ascetic interpretation of the Islamic Scriptures, the same hegemonic ambitions,” he said.

...

“There is an undeniable parallel in between Muawiyah’s past crusades and how ISIS has conducted as well as organized its conquest of the Middle East,” Ammanpour added.

Pushing the analogy onto more religious grounds, he stressed:

“There is an important aspect of ISIS which we too often bypass as inherent to the group’s radical nature — its hatred of Shia Islam. This hatred is actually core to ISIS’ paradigm, its entire philosophy revolves around the idea that it is the true keeper of Islamic tradition and that the sword is the only mean to promote its faith.

Islam’s break occurred under Muawiyah, when he chose to defy Imam Ali and proclaim himself heir to the throne of Islam. It is his rebellion which has fuelled sectarian violence across the ages. Today we are witnessing the unravelling of centuries of bad blood and religious distortion.”

...

Yussef Safwan told MintPress that, as a Muslim scholar, the most interesting part is that “[t]his war we are seeing unfold has been foretold … whether one believes in Islam is in some ways irrelevant, since ISIS believes that its army is fulfilling an Islamic prophecy. Belief and faith have precedent over politics and even realities.”

“Just as Christians and Jews have their own understanding of the apocalypse, Muslims have been taught in great detail what chain of events will lead to the end times. ISIS’ ideology is tied to this prophecy. Its militants have been taught they are the instruments of God’s will and that under their impetus Mahdi [Islamic savior] will come forth,” explained Safwan.

“But if ISIS believes its goals will be sanctified, others believe the black army is the very evil our Prophet warned us against in his hadiths [Islamic prophetic traditions].”

 

[Maninthemirror]

But you're not seeing what I am saying - Who are these Muslims that say it's holistic, and why are they considered true Muslims to you, and not ones who do not view it holistically? Do you also believe that all Catholics are not Christians since they do not believe in gay rights, yet many Protestant churches do? Are only the most moderate sects to be considered real?

And your second point in that quote is my point - there is no valid interpretation of any holy book since they contradict each other. They tell people that certain things are moral or just, but then provide examples that are counter to that point. It's because the majority of the holy book content for each religion was written during the bronze and iron ages and then compiled as time went on.

Following your reason, none of the original apostles should be considered Christians since they are barbaric compared to people today, and nothing any of the early Pope's decreed should be considered valid either.

None of religion makes sense in the modern secular world, and no beliefs are more legitimate than others because none are legitimate to begin with. Some are more or less harmful, but none represent anything but the person beliefs and interpretations of the individuals who hold them. There are no true Muslims, nor is there a true interpretation of the Quran.

The view presented by islam itself

God in islam represents quran as a perfect book in which there is no doubt. Muslims view that statement as saying there is no contradiction in what something is said in the Quran. You read the Quran and it clearly says don't kill or murder innocents and it repeats the don't be transgressors line more than a dozen times, applying that simple logic to the whole nature of the Quran if it emphAsis so much on not being aggressive and instead be defensive against the enemies of Islam, you can easily if you use common sense come to the conclusion that those verses which some take out of context even those are not meant to be aggressive acts and that is confirmed when the verses around them are read if only means those physically attacking islams existence. Similarly the majority of punishements are only mentioned to be in the afterlife which disbelievers should have no problem with if they don't believe. There are plenty of Quranic verses which have state that apostasy is a personal thing where man has no right to act against apostates. Other examples like this prove the only way to approach islam is treating it as a holistic faith where if it asks the believers to be peaceful and good natured, any act of violence in verses taken out of context means defensive acts and that is confirmed when you read the verses before and after those verses or other verses in the Quran


You basically have 2 options

The first one is do you believe in all of the verses, good morals and actions which are defensive
The second one is to believe in selective verses where you ignore the good Morals and have the offensive view contradicting Quran when it says never be offensive

Which one do you think is more true the faith

 

[Kurdel]

You basically have 2 options

The first one is do you believe in all of the verses, good morals and actions which are defensive
The second one is to believe in selective verses where you ignore the good Morals and have the offensive view contradicting Quran when it says never be offensive

Which one do you think is more true the faith

The problem is, everything is up to interpretation and rationalisation.

ISIS see themselves as being defensive against Assad and the Iraqi government, so they can say they are acting in self-defense.

Hamas can order rockets to be shot at civilians areas, and have people call it defense. Do you need an immediate act for it to be valid, or can it become an act of agression?

There is no right answer here, because it is so broad it can be interpreted a lot of ways.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The problem is, everything is up to interpretation and rationalisation.

ISIS see themselves as being defensive against Assad and the Iraqi government, so they can say they are acting in self-defense.

Hamas can order rockets to be shot at civilians areas, and have people call it defense. Do you need an immediate act for it to be valid, or can it become an act of agression?

There is no right answer here, because it is so broad it can be interpreted a lot of ways.

Daesh ignores all moral characteristics like not forcing women against their will, not forcing anyone in terms of faith or lack of and that is the tip of the iceberg. Muslims also sometimes ignore verses but I would think going from what I have read DAesh ignores all moral verses and all defensive verses, this is why muslims don't believe they are following islam by the book and picking and chosing. Majority muslims chose not to be aggressive in most cases unlike all cases but Daesh are aggressive in all cases in every aspect of their lives. Any common man person can see who is really following Islam by the letter closer to what is suggested. No one follows it 100 percent obviously man has obvious weaknesses but you can study the whole book and judge yourself

Quran is pretty explicit that jihad is religious where the faith is being defended from eliminated. Hamas is in a political war in the veil of islamic excuses, they are saving civilians in their view and land not their faith as it won't die even if Israel wipes them out religioj will still be there

 

[block tower]

Except when the islamic text defines what is the responsibly is as a muslim in life. Don't know why people ignore it or chose to pick and chose verses to redefine the definition

your response hasn't settled what a true muslim is, nor have you given us a measurement for faith. your simply saying ISIS chooses to ignore elements of the faith and somehow looses their ability to call themselves muslim which isnt the cause.

 

[RustyNails]

Here's a better article refuting The Atlantic one's piece. Some choice bits below:

1. The Banality

By now, the McCarthyist script should be mind-numbingly familiar. Group A argues that Muslim crazies – in this case ISIS – are acting in accordance with the tenets of Islam, i.e., they're “very Islamic.” Group B – in this case Muslims along with non-Muslim specialists – denies this, marshaling all manner of theological, historical, and sociological evidence. Group A, without skipping a beat, accuses Group B of being apologists for extremism and demands that Group B denounce the crazies (ignoring the copious denunciations Group B has already made in the past).

6. The Fear

Going back to The Atlantic piece, it is hard to tell how Wood's argument differs substantively from those of bona fide anti-Muslim bigots like Pamela Geller or Steve Emerson, who profit handsomely from their crass fear-mongering. Of course, Wood is savvy enough to package his conclusions in the veneer of objective reporting – quoting heavily from a single Princeton scholar as well as interviewing a handful of colorful would-be jihadists “in the field,” i.e., coffee shops in London and Melbourne. But for all the gravity Wood tries to muster, references to Orwell and Hitler notwithstanding, the takeaway in the end is still essentially “Islam is the problem.” Is it any wonder that the biggest Islam and Muslim haters of the world have been tripping over themselves to gush over Wood and his “unparalleled expertise”?

10. The Coffee Shops

Wood can't be bothered with that wider context. What interests him is chatting theology with armchair militants over lattes. Isn't it notable that Wood couldn't find ISIS supporters in the US, but had to travel across the world to meet them in the UK and Australia? Isn't it notable that, for someone who is so interested in theology, Wood couldn't be bothered to meet with a single mainstream Muslim theologian of repute? Isn't it notable that Wood conducted his interviews in coffee shops and not mosques? Maybe it is because self-taught, fringe cartoon characters like Anjem Choudary and Musa Cerantonio don't have mosques or any kind of institutional presence, let alone authority, in the Muslim community. Not that that is what Fox News wants you to think, as it parades these agent provocateurs on national media instead of allowing them to asphyxiate into anonymity.

By the way, what a colorful picture Wood paints of Haykel, with his “unplaceable foreign accent,” his “Mephistophelian goatee,” standing there in front of an array of Arabic tomes, gazing into the abyss with all the solemnity of a man who knows too much. Coincidentally, Haykel is not the first “Bernard” to come out of Princeton with his fingers on the pulse of Muslim fanaticism. While Bernard Lewis did a fine job advising Bush in all the success that was the Iraq War, maybe Haykel can curry enough favor to win an advisory role in America's next great excursion.

More importantly,

19. The Methodology

Finally, then, how is ISIS decidedly not Islamic? Well, what characterizes ISIS's approach to Islamic Law is a glaring lack of methodology beyond textual cherry-picking. They cite broadly, scanning classical Muslim texts for whatever expediently fits their agenda. But this post hoc scrapbooking is the exact reverse of legitimate juristic methodology. The proper derivation of Islamic legal opinions, as practiced for centuries by Muslim jurists, begins from general methodological principles (usul al-fiqh), takes into account the relevant scriptural and extra-scriptural indicants, and then arrives at specific rulings. ISIS, of course, has no usul al-fiqh, no consistent methodology, and, hence, no connection to Islamic Law. And this is precisely what Muslim scholars around the world have been saying in denouncing and debunking ISIS's “McSharia.” A casual observer, like Wood, may be impressed with all the citations ISIS propagandists have up their sleeves, but anyone with a basic understanding of the way Islamic Law works will know better.

 

[Fusebox]

Abrahamic Gods make the shittiest textbooks.

 

[TAJ]

Still with the Daesh?

Just call them what they call themselves, can't hope to ever counter them if you refuse to even call them by their name. Doesn't really matter if Daesh is a different way to say the same thing...

He needs 'Daesh' to catch on because the 'I' stands for 'Islamic'.
He should just change his user name to NoTrueScotsman and be done with it.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Abrahamic Gods make the shittiest textbooks.

God should have made these texts like a math/logic textbook.

Just no room for interpretation whatsoever. He/She/It fucked up unless they're a sadistic God (or not real obviously).

 

[Fusebox]

God should have made these texts like a math/logic textbook.

Just no room for interpretation whatsoever. He/She/It fucked up unless they're a sadistic God (or not real obviously).

God would need to be both omniscient and omnipotent to write such a text, and based on the texts we have God is clearly neither of those things.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

God would need to be both omniscient and omnipotent to write such a text, and based on the texts we have God is clearly neither of those things.

God could have written a few cash-in sequels to the Koran or Bible to keep up with the times and get people hyped for The Word again. Would have been good promotion for His/Her/Its shit and helped His/Her/Its people.

 

[Azih]

I agree.

I went looking for some further reading on ISIS and came across this article. I wondered if perhaps our resident followers of the faith could chime in on what they think of this theory.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/analysis-fifth-caliph-isis-looking-history-understand-present/197829/

One thing that, for some reason, keeps getting lost in these threads is that most of the victims of ISIS/Daesh/whatever are MUSLIMS. So to fixate on "there's something about Islam" type of thinking is obviously over simplifying to the point of becoming inaccurate. The reality is that "there's something about some versions of Islam". Once we get to that point we can start talking about these certain versions.

So it's obvious, despite what quite a few Muslims really honestly believe, that there are a lot of different versions of Islam. The idea there is this really strong set of very well defined rules that govern everything and means that "Islam is more than a religion it's a way of life" is, at best, a pious fiction. As the Andrew Coyne article I posted notes Islam is different from mosque to mosque let alone from country to country.

I'm an amateur historian/theologian of my faith so take what I say with a grain of salt but it seems to me that there are two major branches of Islam, and this third extremist offshoot, that are most relevant here. No real need to get into too much detail (unless you really want to) but the major source of the splits is a historical confusion on how should have succeeded the Prophet after he died.

Shias basically think that the Prophet's nephew Ali should have succeeded the Prophet. Orthodox Shiasm evolved to be pretty hierarchical and there's a pretty defined set up of Aytatollahs and Grand Ayatollahs that are basically scholars of Shia theology and legal thought. This has survived to this day of course in Iran and now it's back in Iraq since the fall of Saddam.

Sunnis basically think that the right thing happened when the Prophet's close friend Abu Bakr succeeded. Orthodox Sunni legal thought evolved into four schools of Sunni Law which were responsible for faith and law. This is 'traditional Islam' where to decide on laws judges didn't go straight to the Hadith and the Quran, they went to the works of the four schools (which are basically commentaries on the Hadith and the Quran) and only went to the primary sources if the commentaries didn't provide an answer.

ISIS/Al-Qaeda types don't belong to either of these. The tradition they belong to started only a few hundred years ago when some Sunni philosophers/religious leaders broke from the traditional Sunni schools and insisted that the primary sources are far more important than the works of the four schools. Eighteenth century figure Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab is who want to read up on to see where they are coming from. There is some overlap between them and traditional Sunnis and, for various reasons, they fucking hate Shias with a passion. These Wahhabi type movements would have probably stayed confined to the Arabian peninsula if it didn't turn out that the Arabian peninsual was sitting on top of an ocean of the most valuable resource of the twentieth century. Fucking oil, what can you do?

The article you posted is a very... Shia... view of ISIS. I don't think tying them back to Muwayiah is very useful. The most important thing to note is that ISIS/Al-Qaeda types don't belong to any sort of traditional Islam.

Edit: And you can see again instead of dealing with any complexity, posters here seem to be more than content to just go "ReligionLol. Anybody who isn't just blaming the Quran for all this is a No True Scotsman APOLOGIST"

 

[Mrmartel]

I have thread making powers now, but I figure this doesn't quite need it's own page yet. Until unfortunately, they start lopping heads off.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-mideast-crisis-christians-idUSKBN0LS0MH20150224


"(Reuters) - Islamic State militants have abducted at least 90 people from Assyrian Christian villages in northeastern Syria, a monitoring group tracking violence in Syria said on Tuesday.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said they carried out dawn raids on rural villages inhabited by the ancient Christian minority west of Hasaka, a city mainly held by the Kurds."

 

[Battersea Power Station]

If anyone is interested they had both authors on The Takeaway yesterday:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/at-the-heart-of-isis-a-battle-over-islam/

It's a silly "argument" because neither is saying anything controversial and they largely agree on what needs to be done to battle ISIS. I think the author of the counter-article, like many people in this thread, is wary of associating anything to do with Islam with the Islamic State because of obvious negative stereotypes and the like. And The Atlantic guy knows this and is very careful to say that ISIS in no way represents Islam but that we need to recognize their religious cores in order to best battle their influence.

Anyway, I recommend listening to the short segment because it shows how little disagreement there is between the two guys.

 

[kruis]

If anyone is interested they had both authors on The Takeaway yesterday:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/at-the-heart-of-isis-a-battle-over-islam/

It's a silly "argument" because neither is saying anything controversial and they largely agree on what needs to be done to battle ISIS. I think the author of the counter-article, like many people in this thread, is wary of associating anything to do with Islam with the Islamic State because of obvious negative stereotypes and the like. And The Atlantic guy knows this and is very careful to say that ISIS in no way represents Islam but that we need to recognize their religious cores in order to best battle their influence.

That's what Maninthemirror is doing constantly. And it's not really helpful when it comes to understanding what Isis stands for, what they want and why they're doing the horrible shit they do. No matter what the Isis terrorists do, their heinous acts are inspired by islamic theology. And yes, that islamic theology is not shared by most people in the muslim world. We get that.

 

[Azih]

If anyone is interested they had both authors on The Takeaway yesterday:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/at-the-heart-of-isis-a-battle-over-islam/

It's a silly "argument" because neither is saying anything controversial and they largely agree on what needs to be done to battle ISIS. I think the author of the counter-article, like many people in this thread, is wary of associating anything to do with Islam with the Islamic State because of obvious negative stereotypes and the like. And The Atlantic guy knows this and is very careful to say that ISIS in no way represents Islam but that we need to recognize their religious cores in order to best battle their influence.

Anyway, I recommend listening to the short segment because it shows how little disagreement there is between the two guys.

Yeah, listening to Haykel's later clarifications makes it seem like the problem with the Atlantic article comes far more from Wood than Haykel.

 

[Azih]

That's what Maninthemirror is doing constantly. And it's not really helpful when it comes to understanding what Isis stands for, what they want and why they're doing the horrible shit they do. No matter what the Isis terrorists do, their heinous acts are inspired by islamic theology. And yes, that islamic theology is not shared by most people in the muslim world. We get that.

You do. ItWasMeantToBe19 and FuseBox don't.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

You do. ItWasMeantToBe19 and FuseBox don't.

Umm, yeah, bad reading there, Azih. See how room for interpretation is bad?

I definitely understand that most interpretations of the Islamic faith are completely different than ISIS. I'm attacking the fact that God/Allah would make a book that would allow for a great deal of interpretation. If She didn't want ISIS to exist, She would have made a text that had zero possibility for bad interpretation.

And those type of books can exist and a God should be able to write one if humans could.

I have nothing against Muslims, I have something against religious texts in general for having the possibility of interpretation that could be used for evil.

 

[Azih]

Umm, yeah, bad reading there, Azih.

I definitely understand that most interpretations of the Islamic faith are completely different than ISIS. I'm attacking the fact that God/Allah would make a book that would allow for a great deal of interpretation. If She didn't want ISIS to exist, She would have made a text that had zero possibility for bad interpretation.

And those type of books can exist and a God should be able to write one if humans could.

I have nothing against Muslims, I have something against religious texts in general for having the possibility of interpretation that could be used for evil.

Well you'll forgive me for assuming that you weren't going on on Off Topic tangent of "Religious Books: Bad or Just the Worst?" in the middle of thread dealing with how dangerous it is to just generally bash "Islam" when dealing with people like ISIS. You are more than welcome to make those theological points all you want but it's incredibly bizarre to do so in this thread. At the very best it would be ignored so the thread wouldn't go careening off an tanget.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Good read, thanks OP!

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I agree that the focus on how Islamic ISIS is or isn't is pointless, but here's my issue with statements like this:

Scholars who study Islam, authorities of Islamic jurisprudence, are telling ISIS that they are wrong

Ok, and you can find a bunch of other scholars who study Islam, authorities of Islamic jurisprudence, who will say ISIS is right.

And it is impossible to say one or the other is clearly right because we are still talking about writings of crazy people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago.

What would be fantastic is if we could recognize that the divine shit was man-made, and the rest also, mostly fictitious, non-sense. That way, interpretation would be irrelevant and we'd KNOW that no matter what ISIS claims, or what scholar you ask, they're always wrong.

 

[EnlightenedMint]

Juan Cole has a pretty good article in The Nation called How ‘Islamic’ Is the Islamic State?

 

[Rush_Khan]

Juan Cole has a pretty good article in The Nation called How ‘Islamic’ Is the Islamic State?

Great article. Thanks for posting.

 

[Azih]

Yeah thanks for posting the article Sat0ri.

 

[The Technomancer]

Man, its so weird n sad that 'supported by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins' has become my new red flag for bigoted bullshit.

New atheism is going to be one of the faces of the new right after the current one implodes, mark my words

 

[Ikael]

This controversy misses the point. The important thing about terrorists is not which kind of label the outsider group peg into them (how the west views ISIS) but rather how they view theirselves and how "their public" (aka, the social strata needed for keeping any insurgency alive) views them. As I view it, ISIS practices some kind of corrupted, satanic, idiotic and vomitive version of Islam, but in their own eyes they are "holier than anyone of thou", and that's far more relevant than any personal judgement since this is what they are trying to "sell" to their fellow Iraqui sunnis.

 

[Maninthemirror]

perhaps the best response to the original atlantic article is another article by the Atlantic today

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...hat-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/

The group's interpretation of the religion is not literal. It is not serious. And saying otherwise puts Muslims in an impossible situation.

Following the publication of his Atlantic cover story, “What ISIS Really Wants,” Graeme Wood has challenged critics who claim that he misrepresented Islamic belief, noting, “It’s instructive to see how responses to my piece reckon with or ignore this line: ‘Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do.’” But Wood’s entire essay implies that such a rejection of ISIS by other Muslims can only be hypocritical or naive, and that ISIS members and supporters follow the texts of Islam as faithfully and seriously as anyone.

The main expert in Wood’s article is Princeton University professor Bernard Haykel, who “regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. … In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war.”

Put another way: Not only are Muslims wrong that ISIS is distorting Islamic texts, but the very idea is preposterous. ISIS is faithfully following Islamic norms of war. All of this might lead a thoughtful reader to wonder what all the other Muslims are doing.

Wood quotes Haykel’s invocation of an axiom, common in academic discourse, that there is no such thing as ‘Islam,’ rather, “It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Presumably Wood does this in order to emphasize that he is not personally offering a criterion to judge who is a good or bad Muslim. But he introduces just such a criterion: namely, that a Muslim is evaluated according to his or her interpretation of these texts. His article evaluates ISIS against other Muslims on this basis.

“What’s striking about [ISIS] is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts,” Haykel said. “There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”
But who decides who takes the texts seriously? On what grounds do non-Muslim journalists and academics tell Muslims that their judgment that ISIS does not take a full and fair view of the Quran and Sunnah (the example and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) amounts to a “cotton-candy” view of Islam, while these non-Muslims retain the right to judge how “serious” ISIS is in its understanding of core Islamic texts?

If we take the “It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts” axiom seriously, then there would be no grounds to declare that a Muslim who believes in a pantheon of gods is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam. After all, the Quran, speaking with the Divine Voice, often uses the royal "We" when addressing Muslims. Would this belief in multiple gods also be ‘Islam’? Would these polytheistic Muslims have “just as much legitimacy as anyone else” because they are drawing on the same texts as other Muslims?

Can we extend the axiom of “There is no X, there is only what followers of X do and how they interpret their texts” beyond Islam? If a scientist claims, “Eugenics is not a valid application of the principles of science, and is unscientific,” should he expect to be told that the eugenicists were “just as legitimate as anyone else” because they are following the same body of texts? Were not the eugenicists “serious” and “assiduous” in their science, at least in their own eyes? Did they not speak the language of science, and base themselves on Darwin?

In fact, no one acknowledges that all interpretations of their own system of ultimate meaning are equally authentic or faithful, whether this system is scientism, communism, post-modernism, or any other metaphysical commitment including religion. It is arbitrary to present the Islamic interpretative tradition as an unrestricted free-for-all where nothing is assessed on objective rational or moral criteria, in which every last impulse or assertion is equal to all other responses and can never be subjected to judgment or ranking.

What other Muslims have been arguing from the start is that ISIS does not take the texts seriously.

The Quran is a single volume, roughly the length of the New Testament. It is a complex and nuanced text that deals with legal, moral, and metaphysical questions in a subtle and multifaceted way. Then there are the hadīth, or records of sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad, which run into dozens of volumes spanning literally hundreds of thousands of texts, each on average a few sentences long. Then there is the juridical and theological literature about the Quran and the hadīth, which consists of thousands of works written throughout Islamic history.

Does ISIS cite “texts”? Yes, though its main method is to cite individual ḥadīth that support its positions. But remember: The ḥadīth consist of hundreds of thousands of discrete items that range from faithfully transmitted teachings to outright fabrications attributed to the Prophet, and every gradation in between.

Over the centuries, jurists and theologians of every stripe, Sunni and Shiite, have devised rational, systematic methods for sifting through ḥadīth, which are often difficult to understand or seem to say contrary things about the same questions. They have ranked and classified these texts according to how reliable they are, and have used them accordingly in law and theology. But ISIS does not do this. Its members search for text snippets that support their argument, claim that these fragments are reliable even if they are not, and disregard all contrary evidence—not to mention Islam’s vast and varied intellectual and legal tradition. Their so-called “prophetic methodology” is nothing more than cherry-picking what they like and ignoring what they do not.

Furthermore, it is past time to dispense with the idea that organizations like ISIS are “literalist” in their reading of texts. Do the members of ISIS believe, literally, “Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God?” Of course not. Nor would they interpret literally, “God is the light of the heavens and the earth,” or any number of other passages from the Quran that the so-called “literalists” are compelled to either ignore or read as some kind of metaphor or allegory. I’d like to see ISIS offer a “literal” interpretation of the ḥadīth that says that when God loves a person, He “becomes the ear with which he hears, the eye with which he sees, the hand with which he grasps, and the foot with which he walks.”

What distinguishes the interpretive approach of groups like ISIS from others is not its literalism (Sufis are indeed the most “literal” of all such interpreters of the Quran) but its narrowness and rigidity; for the adherents of ISIS, the Quran means exactly one thing, and other levels of meaning or alternate interpretations are ruled out a priori. This is not literalism. It is exclusivism.

Wood expands on his impression of the religious seriousness of ISIS fighters by pointing out that they speak in coded language, which in reality consists of “specific traditions and texts of early Islam.” Speeches are “laced with theological and legal discussion.” But there is a wide chasm between someone who “laces” his conversations with religious imagery (very easy) and someone who has actually studied and understood the difficulties and nuances of an immense textual tradition (very hard). I personally know enough Shakespeare to “lace” my conversations with quotations from Hamlet and the sonnets. Does that make me a serious Shakespeare scholar? I can “code” my language with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but is that proof of my assiduousness in relation to the Bard?

The first thing I teach my undergraduates is that the English word “Islam” has two distinct but related meanings: the “Islam” that corresponds to Christendom (the civilization) and the “Islam” that corresponds to Christianity (the religion). The result is that the term “Islamic” has two separate but related uses, as does “un-Islamic.”

In his article and elsewhere, Wood has challenged the claim by Muslims that ISIS is un-Islamic by pointing out that ISIS members are self-identified Muslims. But Muslims who say “ISIS is un-Islamic” are not saying that ISIS fighters are not Muslims at all. They are calling ISIS “un-Islamic” the way a politician might call bigotry “un-American.” In fact, a prominent expert on ISIS has noted, “I would be curious to know how many Muslims are willing to declare the members of [ISIS] non-Muslim,” adding, “I bet you there are very, very few people.” That expert is Bernard Haykel.

In other words, Haykel knows that few Muslims are prepared to describe ISIS as non-Muslim. And yet:

Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically … “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.”
Haykel recognizes that Muslims are not accusing ISIS members of being non-Muslims. Instead, he seems to be objecting to the Muslim claim that ISIS’s adherents are bad Muslims.

Throughout Wood’s article, this basic nuance between “Islamic” as a normative label and “Islamic” as a factual or historical label is absent, notably from such unqualified declarations as, “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” Can such statements be interpreted as anything but a judgment of ISIS’s fidelity to Islamic religion? If Wood was simply identifying the tradition or civilization out of which ISIS has emerged, then what would the word “very” mean? Wood also argues:

imply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.
Un-Islamic in which of the two senses? And again, on what authority does Wood assert that such practices are “plainly” within these texts? Determining what texts “plainly” say is not as easy as spotting some words on a page. Islam’s interpretative tradition exists because the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious. The Quran speaks of itself as a book containing passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and mutashābih, or symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous (even the significance of this word is debated among Muslims). To make such a casual remark about what is “plainly within” the Quran or other texts is to fail to take them or the Islamic intellectual tradition seriously.

Wood further asserts with confidence, “The religion preached by [ISIS’s] most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.” It's just one more example of how his essay, ostensibly a descriptive account of a group of Muslims and its interpretations of texts, is in reality an account of the fidelity of ISIS to Islamic teaching and a critique of the claim by other Muslims that ISIS is wrong.

All of this puts Muslims in a double bind: If they just go about their lives, they stand condemned by those who demand that Muslims “speak out.” But if they do speak out, they can expect to be told that short of declaring their sacred texts invalid, they are fooling themselves or deceiving the rest of us. Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.

 

[Cyan]

Can we extend the axiom of “There is no X, there is only what followers of X do and how they interpret their texts” beyond Islam?

Sure, of course.

If a scientist claims, “Eugenics is not a valid application of the principles of science, and is unscientific,” should he expect to be told that the eugenicists were “just as legitimate as anyone else” because they are following the same body of texts? Were not the eugenicists “serious” and “assiduous” in their science, at least in their own eyes? Did they not speak the language of science, and base themselves on Darwin?

Uh... science isn't a religion.

In fact, no one acknowledges that all interpretations of their own system of ultimate meaning are equally authentic or faithful, whether this system is scientism, communism, post-modernism, or any other metaphysical commitment including religion. It is arbitrary to present the Islamic interpretative tradition as an unrestricted free-for-all where nothing is assessed on objective rational or moral criteria, in which every last impulse or assertion is equal to all other responses and can never be subjected to judgment or ranking.

Aww, cute. Science still isn't a religion.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Sure, of course.


Uh... science isn't a religion.


Aww, cute. Science still isn't a religion.

its an example of using logic. don't see where it is equating science with religion, it is an example of comparing the logic or lack thereof of people who use the literalist argument and interpretations.

the notion is simple:

Daesh picks and chooses the verses and hadith it likes with no context and applies their logic to their version of faith
Non-Daesh understands all verses in context without picking and chosing and hadith which dont contradict those verses and apply the entirety of the faith in a holistic way rather than a pick and chose way to apply logic to their faith.

When the reply to multiple Quranic text are...well that one hadith says this. you create your own definitions for muslims by saying Quran to Muslims is same as Hadith whereas in reality as Muslims see Quran as the word of God and Hadith as compiled by men 200-300 years later of words and actions. Quran as a whole takes precedence in its entirety over Hadith from the Islamic viewpoint.

also the how they interpret is who they are is out of the window when your faith is built upon ignoring verses more than accepting the book as a WHOLE. Islam for Muslims has to be accepted as a whole and if you want to practice it or else you are muslim by name only not by practice

 

[Cyan]

its an example of using logic. don't see where it is equating science with religion, it is an example of comparing the logic or lack thereof of people who use the literalist argument and interpretations.

No, the guy is trying to argue that the obvious fact that religious texts have multiple interpretations somehow means everything must have multiple interpretations, which is nonsense. Science isn't a religion, and scientific works are directly connected to reality. Anyone could go out and test scientific theories and observations and confirm their truth.

 

[ponpo]

its an example of using logic. don't see where it is equating science with religion, it is an example of comparing the logic or lack thereof of people who use the literalist argument and interpretations.

the notion is simple:

Daesh picks and chooses the verses and hadith it likes with no context and applies their logic to their version of faith
Non-Daesh understands all verses in context without picking and chosing and hadith which dont contradict those verses and apply the entirety of the faith in a holistic way rather than a pick and chose way to apply logic to their faith.

also the how they interpret is who they are is out of the window when your faith is built upon ignoring verses more than accepting the book as a WHOLE. Islam for Muslims has to be accepted as a whole and if you want to practice it or else you are muslim by name only not by practice

I don't think this is true. You're saying that ISIS picks and chooses which passages to follow more than extremely moderate Western Muslims? Sounds unlikely. Picking and choosing is what leads to moderation. Christians and Jews aren't stoning people to death because they are picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow.

If you're trying to argue that understanding the faith as a whole will lead to moderation, that doesn't sound right either, unless you mean one would just keep coming upon contradictions that allow one to ignore whatever they choose to ignore because of a contradictory and less brutal passage.

 

[Maninthemirror]

No, the guy is trying to argue that the obvious fact that religious texts have multiple interpretations somehow means everything must have multiple interpretations, which is nonsense. Science isn't a religion, and scientific works are directly connected to reality. Anyone could go out and test scientific theories and observations and confirm their truth.

this was only part 1 of his argument that religions have multiple interpretations where if a polytheist says I am muslim, well he can say he a muslim but is he really practicing islam by being a polytheist? If a muslim says there are 2 Gods is he practicing Islam while being Muslim or is he Muslim by name only at that point. If you see something, one of the theories must be the most logically sound conclusion as opposed to other theories which are theories but if taken in its entirety, don't bear fruit when faced with logic

I don't think this is true. You're saying that ISIS picks and chooses which passages to follow more than extremely moderate Western Muslims? Sounds unlikely. Picking and choosing is what leads to moderation. Christians and Jews aren't stoning people to death because they are picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow.

If you're trying to argue that understanding the faith as a whole will lead to moderation, that doesn't sound right either, unless you mean one would just keep coming upon contradictions that allow one to ignore whatever they choose to ignore because of a contradictory and less brutal passage.

well they are. the majority of the Quran is to treat everyone with respect nomatter what their belief. dont kill for apostasy and never be aggressors. this is what majority muslims practice and Daesh don't. If a cleric in a government applies the law in todays time that doesnt mean its true from its inception if you look at the text and history of islam itself from an objective source.

I am sorry but moderation is the key to faith. faith in moderation is here to stay whether the extremists on both sides like it or not

 

[nynt9]

this was only part 1 of his argument that religions have multiple interpretations where if a polytheist says I am muslim, well he can say he a muslim but is he really practicing islam by being a polytheist? If a muslim says there are 2 Gods is he practicing Islam while being Muslim or is he Muslim by name only at that point. If you see something, one of the theories must be the most logically sound conclusion as opposed to other theories which are theories but if taken in its entirety, don't bear fruit when faced with logic




well they are. the majority of the Quran is to treat everyone with respect nomatter what their belief. dont kill for apostasy and never be aggressors. this is what majority muslims practice and Daesh don't. If a cleric in a government applies the law in todays time that doesnt mean its true from its inception if you look at the text and history of islam itself from an objective source.

I am sorry but moderation is the key to faith. faith in moderation is here to stay whether the extremists on both sides like it or not

How do you interpret 16:106 then? Sure, it does not specify death but it implies some form of dreaful/grievous/awful penalty.

Sahih International: Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;

Pickthall: Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.

Yusuf Ali: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

Shakir: He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.

Muhammad Sarwar: No one verbally denounces his faith in God - unless he is forced - but his heart is confident about his faith. But those whose breasts have become open to disbelief will be subject to the wrath of God and will suffer a great torment.

Mohsin Khan: Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.

Arberry: Whoso disbelieves in God, after he has believed -- excepting him who has been compelled, and his heart is still at rest in his belief -- but whosoever's breast is expanded in unbelief, upon them shall rest anger from God, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement;

I am an apostate from Islam. What do you believe should happen to me, and how is that justified within context of this verse?

You said earlier that most Muslims believe Daesh are ignoring some verses. I'd argue that most Muslims are ignoring and/or creatively interpreting certain verses as it makes integrated modern life inconvenient. It's just a matter of which ones you interpret and which way you take them.

 

[Rentahamster]

Furthermore, it is past time to dispense with the idea that organizations like ISIS are “literalist” in their reading of texts. Do the members of ISIS believe, literally, “Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God?” Of course not. Nor would they interpret literally, “God is the light of the heavens and the earth,” or any number of other passages from the Quran that the so-called “literalists” are compelled to either ignore or read as some kind of metaphor or allegory. I’d like to see ISIS offer a “literal” interpretation of the ḥadīth that says that when God loves a person, He “becomes the ear with which he hears, the eye with which he sees, the hand with which he grasps, and the foot with which he walks.”

Sounds like a strawman argument here. A literalist, fundamentalist, religious person obviously doesn't literally believe 100% of the text. There is still room for metaphor in a literalist interpretation. Saying that someone isn't a literalist because they're not taking obvious metaphors literally isn't a good argument.

 

[Oppo]

well, the new article talks a good game, I'll give him that.

here is the bit that I can't go with:

Un-Islamic in which of the two senses? And again, on what authority does Wood assert that such practices are “plainly” within these texts? Determining what texts “plainly” say is not as easy as spotting some words on a page. Islam’s interpretative tradition exists because the differences between plain and hidden, elliptical and direct, absolute and qualified, are not always obvious. The Quran speaks of itself as a book containing passages that are muḥkam, or clear in meaning, and mutashābih, or symbolic, allegorical, or ambiguous (even the significance of this word is debated among Muslims). To make such a casual remark about what is “plainly within” the Quran or other texts is to fail to take them or the Islamic intellectual tradition seriously.

So, sorry to put this in such a crass manner, but what the flying fuck good is this supposedly sacred, perfect, holy, handed-down-from-god-by-way-of-prophet book, if it is so completely ludicrously riddled with traps and "apparent" outright lies that need to be interpreted correctly?

Like, what a colossal, monumental waste of time and energy.

Why isn't God's word the most perfect, most seductive, most convincing, riveting, mindblowing text one could possibly ever witness? Why does it need such a preposterously rigorous, nuanced, barfingly hair-splitting super-re-interpretation to be consiered even remotely useful or enlightening?

This argument descends behind this impenetrable curtain of "please read 10,000 pages of Arabic before you deign to know whereof you speak" that frankly I find supremely insulting.

So no, I still don't disagree with Wood on this point, as the plainly obvious (yet divinely deceptive) text doesn't seem to equivocate, and not everyone has access to a super well-adjusted imam to disentangle the bits that say kill someone or beat your wife as to read seriously, don't kill someone, and your wife is nice. I just can't get it.

I am an apostate from Islam. What do you believe should happen to me, and how is that justified within context of this verse?

You said earlier that most Muslims believe Daesh are ignoring some verses. I'd argue that most Muslims are ignoring and/or creatively interpreting certain verses as it makes integrated modern life inconvenient. It's just a matter of which ones you interpret and which way you take them.

I'd like to know this as well, and also what is thought of the way the Saudis are going about things. (see: related apostasy thread)

 

[nynt9]

well, the new article talks a good game, I'll give him that.

here is the bit that I can't go with:



So, sorry to put this in such a crass manner, but what the flying fuck good is this supposedly sacred, perfect, holy, handed-down-from-god-by-way-of-prophet book, if it is so completely ludicrously riddled with traps and "apparent" outright lies that need to be interpreted correctly?

Like, what a colossal, monumental waste of time and energy.

Why isn't God's word the most perfect, most seductive, most convincing, riveting, mindblowing text one could possibly ever witness? Why does it need such a preposterously rigorous, nuanced, barfingly hair-splitting super-re-interpretation to be consiered even remotely useful or enlightening?

This argument descends behind this impenetrable curtain of "please read 10,000 pages of Arabic before you deign to know whereof you speak" that frankly I find supremely insulting.

So no, I still don't disagree with Wood on this point, as the plainly obvious (yet divinely deceptive) text doesn't seem to equivocate, and not everyone has access to a super well-adjusted imam to disentangle the bits that say kill someone or beat your wife as to read seriously, don't kill someone, and your wife is nice. I just can't get it.


I'd like to know this as well, and also what is thought of the way the Saudis are going about things. (see: related apostasy thread)

I agree. When arguing on one side, people use "well those verses need interpretation so you can't think of it like that" then the same people go and say "no you're taking that verse out of context, you can't listen to the hadiths they are not true, only refer to the book as it is the infallible word of God". You can't have it both ways.

Also still waiting for an answer on my apostasy situation with respect to the verse I quoted.

 

[Forkball]

On a scale from a bacon sandwich to the Kaaba, how Islamic are ISIS?

 

[cackhyena]

Man, its so weird n sad that 'supported by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins' has become my new red flag for bigoted bullshit.

Ugh

 

[beast786]

How do you interpret 16:106 then? Sure, it does not specify death but it implies some form of dreaful/grievous/awful penalty.



I am an apostate from Islam. What do you believe should happen to me, and how is that justified within context of this verse?

You said earlier that most Muslims believe Daesh are ignoring some verses. I'd argue that most Muslims are ignoring and/or creatively interpreting certain verses as it makes integrated modern life inconvenient. It's just a matter of which ones you interpret and which way you take them.

There are 13 muslim countries who have punishment of death BY LAW. Think about it. As a fellow apostate. Me an you will be killed.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9B900G20131210?irpc=932

There is Quran and Hadith . People follow both to come to conclusions. It's not even just about Quran as you can't ignore the Hadith , especially in avg when more than 50% and in some countries as much as 97% adhere to Hadith

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...-politics-society-relationship-among-muslims/

And then its no wonder 13 countries not just ISIS will kill you and me.

More than 50% of muslim believe it's there religious active duty to convert people to islam.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-interfaith-relations/

Put all together and yes ISIS makes perfect sense. Just like 13 other muslim countries that will kill you and me by law

 

[nynt9]

There are 13 muslim countries who have punishment of death BY LAW. Think about it. As a fellow apostate. Me an you will be killed.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9B900G20131210?irpc=932

There is Quran and Hadith . People follow both to come to conclusions. It's not even just about Quran as you can't ignore the Hadith , especially in avg when more than 50% and in some countries as much as 97% adhere to Hadith

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...-politics-society-relationship-among-muslims/

And then its no wonder 13 countries not just ISIS will kill you and me.

More than 50% of muslim believe it's there religious active duty to convert people to islam.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-interfaith-relations/

Put all together and yes ISIS makes perfect sense. Just like 13 other muslim countries that will kill you and me by law

I know these facts, I'm just curious as to what kind of spin maninthemirror will come up with this time.

 

[Maninthemirror]

There are 13 muslim countries who have punishment of death BY LAW. Think about it. As a fellow apostate. Me an you will be killed.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9B900G20131210?irpc=932

There is Quran and Hadith . People follow both to come to conclusions. It's not even just about Quran as you can't ignore the Hadith , especially in avg when more than 50% and in some countries as much as 97% adhere to Hadith

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...-politics-society-relationship-among-muslims/

And then its no wonder 13 countries not just ISIS will kill you and me.

More than 50% of muslim believe it's there religious active duty to convert people to islam.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-interfaith-relations/

Put all together and yes ISIS makes perfect sense. Just like 13 other muslim countries that will kill you and me by law

13 muslim countries need the reform where religion cannot be forced on its people politically and religiously. People used to apostate freely in early days of islam and only the ones who attacked muslims were defended against. I don't hate people who only think I'm an apostate I only am against the people who would kill me for it without hating them and I pray they are shown the right way not write them off completely unless their life is now built of violence whereby I would let the authorities take care of them when they surrender or killed In their own battles

You were brought up in a place where hadith Is equal to the Quran. That is wrong. You should ignore the hadith that contradict the Quran as a whole. Cannot be more clearer than that. The traditions of the Holy Prophet written 300 years after Islam are a reference where many are non authentic when they contradict the word of God as per muslims. Hadith were compiled 300 years after Islam started from memory.

I lived in Pakistan despite its clerics thinking I am safe to kill as I am apostate doesn't mean I hate the people or the country. I love it still, it's my birth country and in fact I pray the people go back to the time when clerics did not write the politics and pray that people go back to their own original teachings. My faith is built not on hate, it's built on prayer to remove all hate which is the message of Islam too.

Trying to convert people is one thing ask.those people how many will kill to convert people, those are people people need to reform. Anti theists and atheists constantly try to convert people away from religion do I hate them? No its their right to express their opinion as long as there is no hate and no prejudice and no physical harm due to it, In fact as per Islam when I post Quranic verses in any post that Is accounted as an attempt to convert as per Islam so by that logic you might as well put me in that 50 percent