ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[ak22]

Presumably that's taken out of context?

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.


How is "at war" defined? As they would argue they are at war.

You cannot take verses out of of the Quran randomly and use their meaning purely in the physical sense or literal sense. You need to research fully into the time and events surrounding the revelation of each verse & read the whole chapter, only then you begin to understand the necessity of such a verse.


Back to the Quote : 8.60
"And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged."


The verse you quoted (8.60) is from Chapter 8 Al-Anfal which has 75 verse's of course it is out of context you quoted the 60th verse. If you go back and read the begin you will see this chapter you will understand that it largely about the Battle of Badr. It was the first war of Muslims against the people who sought to kill them.

The verse is verse is an instruction upon the Muslims to be prepared before the enemy, just like any state they have arms budget and are ready for any threats even the unknown enemy.

If you read the next verse which is saying if the emery wants peace then make peace.

Quran 8.61 "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing."

Read whole chapter and see it for yourself, their are many other verses/chapters regard peace and rules of war etc.

Before engaging in battle the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) instructed his soldiers:

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)

3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)

4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)

5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)

8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)

9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).

10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

 

[Cosimo]

A train station being evacuated in Paris now for a suspicious package. Probably just a false alarm but it must be pretty scary living there just now, everything will look suspicious.

Suspect baggage/package at the Gare du Nord. The slightest thing will now be reported and bring some daily chaos to parts of the city.

 

[NickK]

I've not inferred that

I think the clarity is that there's two main points here:
a) extremism
b) segregation

Where segregation can cause or speed radicalisation, the individuals are following a religious leader that is defining and propagating the segregation.

The state could licence religious leaders by requiring the compliance of anti-segregation and anti-extremism. However a state that gives a religion free will is likely to expect that the religion is capable of doing that by itself - without being facist in dictating.

Which has a right? The state voted right to be a bastion of support for individuals for the bettering of the republic as a whole, or the "god-given-right" that a religious leader is interpreting and cannot be questioned.

How the state reacts is down to the religious people and their religious leaders - "your call" so to speak.

We're back to the taking religious-isation chain of logic previously discussed as the state will move to protect itself.

Only other option is to plunge the entire religion into civil war and turmoil globally. The instability and lack of strength then weakens the global but leaves the local leaders in control of their flocks. Man kind will fight for any reason it seems - individuals are intelligent, groups tend to follow and exhibit flock behaviour.

In reality - either people have an ounce of humanity and respect for each other, or society is not going to be a nice place for them.

Not seen anything to really move on from this circular argument. I still have zero time for organised religion - I'll treat individuals as they treat me.

 

[Maccy]

Lets agree to disagree.

How many thousands of innocent civilians would it affect though? I hear so many throw away comments by so many clueless people day to day who suggest nuking the place and be done with it, without realising what they're saying.
I'm not saying you're clueless, but the suggestion is nuts.

 

[Amp34]

Dropping a few nukes should solve things

That seems to be what our leaders think. Except when they (mostly the U.S.) drop their missiles on people they create "collateral damage". Some of the family members of the innocents that die in these strikes then go on to join up against the countries that killed their families. And the circle continues...

 

[StriderX]

That seems to be what our leaders think. Except when they (mostly the U.S.) drop their missiles on people they create "collateral damage". Some of the family members of the innocents that die in these strikes then go on to join up against the countries that killed their families. And the circle continues...

Only if you let someone live.

In 20 years precrime will likely be a legally killable offence.

 

[NexusK]

Only if you let someone live.

In 20 years precrime will likely be a legally killable offence.

You've been watching too much Minority Report.

 

[One More Solo]

no that isn't really the case - plenty of fundamentalists genuinely believe in their interpretation in the same way as moderates believe in theirs - they come from all walks of life, they're not all simply violent nutters (though obviously some are) - plenty of suicide bombers are actually highly educated people who've thought about their decision logically within the framework of their belief. In those instances it is quite clearly the belief that is the issue and people sticking their head in the sand and trying to deny this is a religious problem are being naive.

I don't doubt that their belief is the support for their actions, but I don't believe that there are rational suicide bombers. No text is that persuasive, there must also be significant other pressures to lead to that conclusion.

 

[Amp34]

Only if you let someone live.

In 20 years precrime will likely be a legally killable offence.

So we wipe out not just the person we were aiming for, but also the innocent civilians and their families, and their families families?

I think that's called genocide...

 

[NickK]

If a scripture is needed to be interpreted to be followed then it is valid that the reader can evaluate their own interpretation as valid.

The fact that someone states part of scripture to prove a point and someone disagrees indicating they're not using or interpreting scripture is just replicating what is happening in a larger global scale.

The reality, short and curlies, is that an individual does not need to interact or understand the scripture governing another's existence to validate or support their own actions.

 

[Amp34]

I don't doubt that their belief is the support for their actions, but I don't believe that there are rational suicide bombers. No text is that persuasive, there must also be significant other pressures to lead to that conclusion.

A significant proportion appears to be coming from poor backgrounds with no prospects and criminal histories for violence and petty crime.

If your life is **** then a life of "meaning" would be a definite draw.

This is more for the western terrorists and obviously doesn't cover them all but it is the background of a significant proportion.

 

[jsmoke]

Out of interest how are our security services able to thwart so many attacks, as I think they do, I don't think the public are necessarily told of every foiled attack they prevent?

They first need to have people of interest, they must monitor everyone that flies to Turkey, Syria, Iraq and the like for example that's easy to do, I guess they then tap into phone and email/other messages for people of interest. Are they basically monitoring everyone with a connection to Islam or how do they get the names of these people, how do they 'bug' them etc.

Are we talking old fashioned trailing people at two cars lengths, placing bugs in suspects phones, tranquiliser darts in umbrellas, informers. As far as I know nobody can break a VPN connection for example. Or are there really not that many Islamic threats in this country?

Are they any good books on the matter, whistleblowers and the like?

 

[NickK]

So we wipe out not just the person we were aiming for, but also the innocent civilians and their families, and their families families?

I think that's called genocide...

History is written in the shape of victors.

Plenty of times in history (Pharos etc) where victors have purposely eradicated references in an attempt to obliterate individuals have existed.

Like everything - actions have consequences. If the human race is to exist and flourish then those consequences need to have not resulted in an alien race finding out humanities existence as an archeological dig.

 

[NickK]

Out of interest how are our security services able to thwart so many attacks, as I think they do, I don't think the public are necessarily told of every foiled attack they prevent?

Security is like Fight Club.

There's a constant inquisition by politicians of security agencies who would simply like to say nothing.

 

[dowie]

I don't doubt that their belief is the support for their actions, but I don't believe that there are rational suicide bombers. No text is that persuasive, there must also be significant other pressures to lead to that conclusion.

you don't want to believe that but it isn't the case a lot of the time, it is just sticking your head in the sand - if they believe in a fundamentalist interpretation it can quite clearly be rational to carry out attacks - sure there is going to be encouragement/reinforcement from others sharing those fundamentalist beliefs too

it was perfectly rational for RAF pilots to bomb Dresden in WW2, we were at war etc...

it can be perfectly rational for terrorists to kill non-muslims, lesser people, people who have no value... plenty of us eat meat and are happy for the mass slaughter of animals to occur - ISIS are happy to kill lesser humans - non-muslim 'infidels' in the same casual way

plenty of people can do nasty things without being inherently 'evil' or mentally ill*, even suicide bombers can be rational

http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/07.CP.3.15

A wealth of research has shown the flaws in this type of thinking. In controlled experiments, people who followed orders to give electric shocks to innocent victims were not inherently evil ( Milgram, 1963 ), and people who were assigned to play “prison guard” and then ended up harassing prisoners were not lifelong sadists ( Zimbardo, 1972 ). More broadly, historical evidence has shown that despite their horrific crimes, the Nazis were not simply a collection of unfeeling psychopaths ( Browning, 1998 ), and before their training and indoctrination, many members of terrorist organizations were essentially ordinary people ( Hoff man, 1998 ; Gunaratna, 2002 ).

Pape (2005 ) bases his positionon his research team's attempt to find information about hundreds of suicide bombers' lives. They uncovered “no documented mental illness, such as depression, psychosis, or past suicide attempts…no evidence of major criminal behavior…[and] not a single report that a suicide attacker was gay, an adulterer, or otherwise living in a way that would bring shame” (pp. 210–211). Both Pape's (2005 ) methods and findings have been the subject of significant criticism ( Ashworth,
Clinton, Meirowitz, & Ramsay, 2008 ), but his conclusion, that “the uncomfortable fact is that suicide terrorists are far more normal than many of us would liketo believe” (p. 211), has been echoed by other scholars. From their perspective, suicide terrorists are relatively ordinary people who become fully committed to their cause because of social and situational factors. They argue that those who point to individual factors as a cause of suicide terrorists' behavior may be committing the fundamental attribution error ( Atran, 2003 ; Brym, 2007 ; Gray & Dickson, 2014 ; Güss & Tuason, 2014 ).

*that isn't to say that none of them are, there may well be some but it isn't a foregone conclusion that they are - there does seem to be a clear attribution error on the part of apologists who want to claim some nonsense along the lines of: 'this has nothing to do with Islam these are just evil people using Islam as an excuse'

 

[enkoda]

I don't doubt that their belief is the support for their actions, but I don't believe that there are rational suicide bombers. No text is that persuasive, there must also be significant other pressures to lead to that conclusion.

You cannot interpret the Quran.
It is the literal and unalterable word of God.

Unless you follow it to the letter you are not a true Muslim.
You cannot introduce concepts such as historical context because you are now questioning Allah.

So when the Quran says death to non-believers these "extremists" are simply doing what God has told them.

You are free to interpret, evaluate or research whatever you like in the Quran, just don't forget that there are many Islamic countries where you would be imprisoned or put to death for doing so.

 

[StriderX]

So we wipe out not just the person we were aiming for, but also the innocent civilians and their families, and their families families?

I think that's called genocide...

It is genocide, but when the stakes are that we ourselves ( the proverbial angels of liberal western values) are becoming a distinct minority, the tables will turn and you will understand the meaning of the word.

We face a misogynistic, counter-rational army of morons who enjoy the sight of a man being whipped to death and a woman hidden behind a veil, for if she took it off all the holiness in the world will vanish and the end times begin.

Secular attitudes need to be adopted quicker than they are, but I think it's too late for most of Asia, for the justification for extremist views is very easy to convey.

We however cannot stop attacking as afterall it would no longer justify the multi-trillion dollar industry for military hardware.

 

[NickK]

You are free to interpret, evaluate or research whatever you like in the Quran, just don't forget that there are many Islamic countries where you would be imprisoned or put to death for doing so.

Where as religious leaders of sects discuss and explain what the wording means as a form of governance - that is interpretation.

 

[bitslice]

Are they basically monitoring everyone with a connection to Islam or how do they get the names of these people

They are all called Mohammed, so that makes it pretty easy...

I gather a lot of it is automated, so not every phone call is listened to, but a computer can listen in on millions of calls, translate what is being said and report back on keywords or unusual patterns of calls.

The rest is linking every single contact a person makes using any media and linking all those together. It would be nigh on impossible to look at any radical material without being flagged eventually.

If someone gets noticed using a VPN, encryption or multiple phones then you can bet they are going to receive special attention.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few mosques were bugged or the homes of certain preachers, or that poster on here who hates Jews


This is the annoying thing about the letting in a few million people pretending to be Syrian, all this security work is insanely expensive, and now we are going to have to multiply it by thousands.
So much for them being 'beneficial to the economy', more like it is going to bleed us dry for decades to come.

 

[zoomee]

The security services do tell people - whether its to blow their own horn (i.e. to justify their existence) or for statistical purposes etc they do tell people when arrests are made.

Whether the media choose to show it you is another matter. It's the sheep (like certain posters here) that tend to follow all this blindly.

Take for example this terrorist threat that was foiled - no mention in mainstream media here because there's no muslamics involved I'm guessing:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/3-men-charged-in-plot-to-bomb-black-churches-566200387857

If it was 3 muslims we can guarantee it would have made front page headlines over here.

That's why its plain to see that even though Islamic terrorism makes up less than 5% of attacks in the US and less than 1% in europe - people still feel like its the biggest threat out there. And of course you have your usual bigots (like a minority of posters here) who will use it to push their own hatred.

There are 1.6 Billion muslims on this planet - IF Islam was actually as bad as what some people here make out, none of us would be here now.