What next after Mosul and Raqqa?

[Jules Galen]

Only if you favor ISIS' interpretation as the "correct" one.

I've read the Koran, and it seems like ISIS's interpretation of it is very accurate. Basically, I found the Koran to be nothing more than a handbook of Fascistic Terror. People give the Koran way more respect thanit deserves.

And here's an interesting observation: like most Christians (who have never read the Bible), most Muslims have never read the Koran. So most Muslims don't really appreciate how nasty a screed the Koran really is - and most Muslims certainly don't live their lives as if they followed a lot of it's worst principals.

Seriously, show me Christians, Jews and Muslims who actually read and follow their "Books" and I'll show you nothing but hatred and everlasting war.

 

[A'isha]

I've read the Koran, and it seems like ISIS's interpretation of it is very accurate. Basically, I found the Koran to be nothing more than a handbook of Fascistic Terror. People give the Koran way more respect thanit deserves.

That's nice. I've read it too, and I rather disagree. So does my cousin, who has a degree in shari'ah. So do all the other Muslims I know and who are in my family.

And here's an interesting observation: like most Christians (who have never read the Bible), most Muslims have never read the Koran. So most Muslims don't really appreciate how nasty a screed the Koran really is - and most Muslims certainly don't live their lives as if they followed a lot of it's worst principals.

Actually, it's members of ISIS who know the least about their religion.

And in any case, your objection does not apply to the scholars who issued the many fatawa at my links.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

They're way ahead of you.

Note that the number of scholars who signed this fatwa (which is far from the only one) is anywhere from two to three times the number of ISIS fighters.

EDIT: And the reason ISIS is trying to "reform Islam" and is engaged in a battle with pretty much the entire rest of the Islamic world is because most Muslims do not believe the same way ISIS does.

I do think the Reformation is a pretty good analogy, though. Keeping in mind that it took the far and away most destructive war in history at the time for protestants and catholics do get along. It is remembered as a positive intellectual development today, but above all else it was an endless series of conflicts and crises.

Of course, religious conflicts were promptly replaced with nationalist ones...

 

[A'isha]

I do think the Reformation is a pretty good analogy, though. Keeping in mind that it took the far and away most destructive war in history at the time for protestants and catholics do get along. It is remembered as a positive intellectual development today, but above all else it was an endless series of conflicts and crises.

Here is a good article about both the limitations of the analogy, and the same kind of caveat regarding the violence of the Christian Reformation that you point out.

 

[Jules Galen]

That's nice. I've read it too, and I rather disagree. So does my cousin, who has a degree in shari'ah. So do all the other Muslims I know and who are in my family.



Actually, it's members of ISIS who know the least about their religion.

And in any case, your objection does not apply to the scholars who issued the many fatawa at my links.

Hmmmm....so you are trying to convince me that the Koran doesn't mean what it says?

If so...then why use the silly thing as the basis of a religion?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Here is a good article about both the limitations of the analogy, and the same kind of caveat regarding the violence of the Christian Reformation that you point out.

Quite. I especially agree with the point about Martin Luther. This is a guy who was obsessed with pogroms and beheading peasants, not some wonderful reformer.

 

[A'isha]

Hmmmm....so you are trying to convince me that the Koran doesn't mean what it says?

Merely pointing out that what you think it says is not as relevant as what Muslims think it says.

And that trying to convince the ones who don't think it says what ISIS thinks it says that they're wrong and ISIS is actually correct seems somewhat...counterproductive.

If so...then why use the silly thing as the basis of a religion?

Religion doesn't have to make sense. That's why it's religion.

 

[Jules Galen]

Merely pointing out that what you think it says is not as relevant as what Muslims think it says. And that trying to convince the ones who don't think it says what ISIS thinks it says that they're wrong and ISIS is actually correct seems somewhat...counterproductive.


Religion doesn't have to make sense. That's why it's religion.

Most Muslims have a very distorted view of the Koran and are happy with that view. That's OK with me, for they tend to be peaceful people who want a peaceful religion to give them comfort. And if they don't really get the Koran right...then who really cares? Nothing makes the Muslims any different than the Jews and Christians in this way: two other religions who also think their Holy Books are just chocked full of nothing but "Goodness".

But...like the Bible and the Jewish Books - the Koran is what it is: and that doesn't make it a pleasant book. And I say this every time the subject comes up, for it is good that it be repeated and that people start to understand what's truly in these books.

 

[Mycroft]

ISIS is claiming they're returning Islam to it's roots, away from corrupt misinterpretations imposed on it by so-calles scholars. In light of that a claim a group of scholars asserting they're wrong proves their point.

Better luck next time, I guess.

McHrozni

There is a reason why most Islamic terrorism is directed against Muslims. The reason is the majority of people don't really want to live their lives by 7th century ideals. It takes that kind of brutal violence to get them to go along.

 

[Mycroft]

I've read the Koran, and it seems like ISIS's interpretation of it is very accurate. Basically, I found the Koran to be nothing more than a handbook of Fascistic Terror. People give the Koran way more respect thanit deserves.

I highly doubt you have read the Qur'an.

 

[A'isha]

There is a reason why most Islamic terrorism is directed against Muslims. The reason is the majority of people don't really want to live their lives by 7th century ideals. It takes that kind of brutal violence to get them to go along.

And they haven't for most of their history, either. Violent fundamentalist sects have been trying to "return" Islam to some mythical "pure" form (against the wishes of most everyone else around them) pretty much as long as Islam itself has existed, from the Kharijites in the 7th Century itself through al-Wahhab in the 18th Century to al-Baghdadi today.

 

[Vixen]

And they haven't for most of their history, either. Violent fundamentalist sects have been trying to "return" Islam to some mythical "pure" form (against the wishes of most everyone else around them) pretty much as long as Islam itself has existed, from the Kharijites in the 7th Century itself through al-Wahhab in the 18th Century to al-Baghdadi today.

I find it telling that some of the most rabid pro-ISIS 'scholars' are those who converted from other religions or grew up in the west. They seem to have this romantic vision, almost, and are in demand because they have studied the Qu'ran, speak Arabic fluently and can act as translators into English as part of the propaganda machine.

 

[McHrozni]

There is a reason why most Islamic terrorism is directed against Muslims. The reason is the majority of people don't really want to live their lives by 7th century ideals. It takes that kind of brutal violence to get them to go along.

No objections there, but they claim to follow those teachings to the letter. They just disagree those teachings exist, even though Mohamed and his companions clearly followed those, and not some other teachings. Plus they agree they were the best Muslims ever (the texts even say so in no uncertain tersms), but they claim they were ... I don't know, wrong or something. Even though they were right.

It's all rather schitzophrenic, really. Moreso than any other religion than I'm familiar with. That said, Islam will continue to produce such vermin until the end of time if it isn't reformed (or worse). I'd like to follow the least bad scenario here, and that doesn't mean judging Islam by any small and arbitrarily selected subset of Muslims, like A'isha advocates we should.

McHrozni

 

[Mycroft]

I'd like to follow the least bad scenario here, and that doesn't mean judging Islam by any small and arbitrarily selected subset of Muslims, like A'isha advocates we should.

I think A'isha's point is that we shouldn't judge them by the minority, but by the majority.

It's the minority that want's to run around and kill people in the name of God, the majority are like you and I who just want to make a decent life for themselves and their posterity.

 

[McHrozni]

I think A'isha's point is that we shouldn't judge them by the minority, but by the majority.

I prefer to judge the followers of a religion based on their personal merit and not just on the flavor of the nonsense they believe in, thank you very much. In fact, I'm not talking about Muslims at all, I'm talking about their religion: Islam.

Islam is defined by more than a collection of practices and beliefs practiced by a majority of people who call themselves Muslims and are currently alive, it's also a series of books who all Muslims agree are Gods' word which explain us what Islam is. Any judgement of Islam must include those as well.

Islam is also a collection of practices and beliefs followed by many people who called themselves Muslims and have since passed away. Their actions too contribute to the judgment of Islam. Curiously A'isha has no qualms about invoking Torquemada when judging Christianity, but refuses to talk about the Fitna wars when judging Islam.

Double standards are rarely a sign of an honest debate.

It's the minority that want's to run around and kill people in the name of God, the majority are like you and I who just want to make a decent life for themselves and their posterity.

A vast majority of Communists, in history and right now, just wanted to make a decent life for themselves and their posterity - all humanity in fact. That doesn't mean we should ignore the Gulags and the Great leap forward when we discuss Communism, does it?

I see no reason why we should use a different standard for Islam, and judge it only by a majority of the people currently alive who call themselves Muslim and ignore just about everything else we have at hand.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Why would I compare civil wars caused by dynastic struggles over the rulership of the early caliphate to the Inquisition?

 

[McHrozni]

Why would I compare civil wars caused by dynastic struggles over the rulership of the early caliphate to the Inquisition?

Special pleading and double standards noted.

As I said earlier, argumentation from hypocrisy usually isn't a sign of an honest debater.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Special pleading and double standards noted.

As I said earlier, argumentation from hypocrisy usually isn't a sign of an honest debater.

Really?

Setting aside for the moment the fact that I actually have often mentioned the fitnah wars here (including in a recent thread which you yourself also participated in), how, exactly, are the fitnah civil wars comparable or connected to the Inquistion such that not mentioning the former whenever the latter is brought up is some kind of "special pleading" or "double standard"?

 

[fuelair]

Ever since the so-called Islamic State (aka ISIL, ISIS, Da'esh) took over Mosul and declared a caliphate in Raqqa, with Baghdadi as its leader, in 2014, Iraqi forces, backed up by 400 US Army personnel with a further 1,000 reservists due to be deployed by the USA, have now taken back large parts of Mosul in recent months.

News in recent days say that troops are reclaiming the area street by street and the fall of ISIL is imminent, say the pundits.

The old town is still under fundamentalist control - and reports claim that the ISIL leader, Baghdadi has fled, as have the other leaders from Raqqa. It is difficult to ascertain how much of this is propaganda to unnerve the Da'esh, as they are called in the Arabic world, and how much is real intelligence, as fierce fighting and resistance continues, with up to 50K of the Raqqa and Mosul population evacuating the cities daily. With a population of 700K still left in Mosul, it is difficult not to foresee a major humanitarian crisis, as the Iraqi-US forces reach the core of the ISIL strongholds.

My question is, what happens next? The US won't get back Iran. Russia will have its interests in the area. Then there are the thousands of radicialised mostly 20-something Muslims hearing the Caliphate's call and making their way to fight for ISIL from all over Europe, no doubt with some kind of romantic vision of being some kind of heroic freedom fighters.

What will become of them?

Where is Baghdadi?

As to the embiggened and colored (**** brown !), above re: the radicalized, I trust they will die in flame and horror as all like them should!!! They have no purpose, nor any reason to live.

 

[McHrozni]

Really?

Setting aside for the moment the fact that I actually have often mentioned the fitnah wars here (including in a recent thread which you yourself also participated in), how, exactly, are the fitnah civil wars comparable or connected to the Inquistion such that not mentioning the former whenever the latter is brought up is some kind of "special pleading" or "double standard"?

Islamic leaders fight who is Mohaneds true heir - no connection to Islam.
Christian secular king abuses the authority of the Catholic church to eradicate subjects he suspects if disloyalty - Christianity is to blame.

You're hypocrycy personified.

McHrozni