ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

awaybreaktoday · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:24

dowie said:
Fundamentalists can read the whole Quran and still be fundamentalists - problem is people interpret the thing differently, it isn't exactly a well thought out book.

There is plenty of nasty stuff in there, being a 'moderate' muslim also involves cherry picking or making convoluted arguments for why violent passages don't apply etc..

yes there is plenty of nastiness in there, I am not saying there is not. no religious book is well thought out

Buddy · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:25

dowie said:
Fundamentalists can read the whole Quran and still be fundamentalists - problem is people interpret the thing differently, it isn't exactly a well thought out book.

There is plenty of nasty stuff in there, being a 'moderate' muslim also involves cherry picking or making convoluted arguments for why violent passages don't apply etc..

Yes, so crazy people will be crazy no matter what. You make reference to context like it's an excuse. So you would agree that these individuals actively choose not to understand the a verse and read from it whatever they want. They could follow the argos catalogue like it's the Quran and still find some excuse to justify their actions.

Much like what you're doing actually. You cherry pick certain verses and then say "no no you are allowed to use context as a argument!" And then completely ignore the blatant acations that directly against Islam oh you know killing raping stealing.

Isis justifying their beliefs without context. What separates you from them?

Dis86 · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:26

awaybreaktoday said:
yes there is plenty of nastiness in there, I am not saying there is not. no religious book is well thought out

I suggest you look in to pastafarianism.

NickK · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:27

dowie said:
and before you point it out yes you can get into all sorts of tedious arguments about which bits of the Quran you chose to ignore...
..
so perhaps in your interpretation slavery isn't allowed, in ISIS's interpretation is allowed

The wording implies if either you are in or out of the religion.. rather than the state.. So basically captured people are slaves (not because you've stated that the individual is an infidel - they're out of the religion).. and their children are born and will remain slaves because they're born to slaves..

So basically as ISIS hate everyone, therefore everyone else are infidels, therefore everyone else (and their subsequent children) are slaves.

See.. the nice thing is, I don't have to even acknowledge that

awaybreaktoday · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:28

Religion is not about the parts but about the whole.

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:33

Buddy said:
Yes, so crazy people will be crazy no matter what. You make reference to context like it's an excuse.

calling them crazy is certainly an excuse and a rather lame one along the same lines as trying to pretend they have 'nothing to do with Islam'

So you would agree that these individuals actively choose not to understand the a verse and read from it whatever they want. They could follow the argos catalogue like it's the Quran and still find some excuse to justify their actions.

no but I'd agree that people actively try not to understand IS... and rather stick their heads in the sand, pretend that IS are just all a bunch of crazy psychos and that none of this has anything to do with Islam

Much like what you're doing actually. You cherry pick certain verses and then say "no no you are allowed to use context as a argument!" And then completely ignore the blatant acations that directly against Islam oh you know killing raping stealing.

Isis justifying their beliefs without context. What separates you from them?

I don't believe in the quran I can point out some violent bits fundamentalists use - what separates me from them is that I'm not a follower of Islam so it is just an old book to me, I don't think it is necessarily true that they disregard context - they simply have a different interpretation. There is no reason why a moderate interpretation is any better than a fundamentalist one - fact is those violent bits are there and while it isn't an issue for me as I'm not a muslim for a moderate muslim they have to cherry pick or try to ignore those bits somehow or claim they don't apply due to some line of reasoning.

RDM · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:33

MrMarvelous said:
^ Thinks that Wikipedia, a site literally anyone with an account can edit is a reliable source.

I could go and find a Koran website and link to the relevant sura but that would take time and I'm on a tablet so is a bit of a faff. If there is anything in the Wikipedia article you disagree with then feel free to state what it is and I can try and find a more authoritative source.

awaybreaktoday · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:39

So, we bomb Syria. For augment sake lets say the bombing is successful after 10 years. Next we git rid of Assad and impose our own tin pot government. We got to this point with Iraq and Libya once and how did that turn out.........

Insanity is, repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Middle eastern countries need dictatorial governments, they need strong willed leaders like Saddam Hussein. Their level of mental evolution is not where it should be for them to be democracies.....

So the west should leave and let the strong dictators rule.

Buddy · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:41

dowie said:
calling them crazy is certainly an excuse and a rather lame one along the same lines as trying to pretend they have 'nothing to do with Islam'

I was actually referring to when you said fundamentalists will be fundamentalists. Ie. People who have a certain goal on mind will do it no matter what a verse says or what your or my opinion is. They aren't exactly looking for a nod from the Muslim world.

And who's got their heads in the sand? Muslims are the biggest victims of ISIS. No one on this thread has suggested anything other than getting rid of ISIS.

To be honest if you honestly think wahhabi Saudi has nothing to do with wahhabi Isis because you feel a responsibility to defend uks alliance with them - you're head is in said sand

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:43

awaybreaktoday said:
Middle eastern countries need dictatorial governments, they need strong willed leaders like Saddam Hussein. Their level of mental evolution is not where it should be for them to be democracies.....

dictatorships are inherently unstable - Libya and Syria started as a result of uprisings not western intervention

Iraq under Saddam still had to deal with uprisings... and also went to war with two of its neighbours

Zethor · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:45

dowie said:
There is no point in linking IS with Judaism, there isn't much of a link other than sharing the same god and some prophets as Christians and Jews - they're an Islamic group, their beliefs come from Islam.

Same God, similar views re slavery, wife purchasing, female rights, treatment of infidels etc. The Old Testament has plenty of convergence points with the IS ideology.

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:47

Buddy said:
I was actually referring to when you said fundamentalists will be fundamentalists. Ie. People who have a certain goal on mind will do it no matter what a verse says or what your or my opinion is. They aren't exactly looking for a nod from the Muslim world.

their goal is derived from their fundamentalist beliefs not the other way around - they're not some political group... they're religious extremists

awaybreaktoday · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:48

dowie said:
dictatorships are inherently unstable - Libya and Syria started as a result of uprisings not western intervention

Iraq under Saddam still had to deal with uprisings... and also went to war with two of its neighbours

The dictators should have been allowed to suppress the uprisings and the west should never have got involved.

Also it is better to leave a saddam doing it so it stays of my doorstep.

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:49

Zethor said:
Same God, similar views re slavery, wife purchasing, female rights, treatment of infidels etc. The Old Testament has plenty of convergence points with the IS ideology.

So what? Same god as Christians too. But you don't see young Christians and Jews wanting to join IS, they're an Islamist group - they're recruiting Muslims!

awaybreaktoday · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:52

dowie said:
So what? Same god as Christians too. But you don't see young Christians and Jews wanting to join IS, they're an Islamist group - they're recruiting Muslims!

They recruit the weak and the desperate and convert them to their own ideology...

P.S. The Jews don't have to use suicide bombers any more, they have their own state now.

Buddy · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:52

dowie said:
their goal is derived from their fundamentalist beliefs not the other way around - they're not some political group... they're religious extremists

So why do they break fundamental laws in Islam?

This took me 1 second to Google.

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:53

awaybreaktoday said:
The dictators should have been allowed to suppress the uprisings and the west should never have got involved.

Not going to happen really, we turned a blind eye to Rwanda and it was a massive mistake. Potential genocides are going to attract attention.

Also it is better to leave a saddam doing it so it stays of my doorstep.

Saddam unchecked would have developed WMDs... he invaded two of his neighbours there wasn't anything good about having him in power after that

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:56

Buddy said:
So why do they break fundamental laws in Islam?

because they have a different interpretation to moderates, is that really hard to understand?

Why don't moderates kill the unbelievers? etc...

awaybreaktoday · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:56

dowie said:
Not going to happen really, we turned a blind eye to Rwanda and it was a massive mistake. Potential genocides are going to attract attention.

Saddam unchecked would have developed WMDs... he invaded two of his neighbours there wasn't anything good about having him in power after that

Saddam had no WMD's and never would have....

P.S. I prefer saddam to ISIS....

Buddy · 1 Dec 2015 at 18:57

dowie said:
because they have a different interpretation to moderates, is that really hard to understand?

Why don't moderates kill the unbelievers? etc...

How can it be an interpretation if it's the exact opposite of what is said?