It agrees with the post in its entirety or it gets the hose
JK we will never get to the bottom of things if we all agree on everything.
Newspaper draws piggy bank to show ISIS funding, Muslim groups attack it as pig is “unislamic”
- Thread starter jason73
- Start date
JK we will never get to the bottom of things if we all agree on everything.
You say tomato, I say tomato
Maybe, but Daesh pisses them off and I would rather that the moderate's interpretations win out. So I'm happy calling them Daesh, despite believing that their Salafist ideology has as much legitimacy from the Quran as moderate interpretations. I'm happy to be proved wrong though, if you have something that breaks it down for me as to why Salafism/Wahhabism is un-Islamic.No, not referring to you.
Actually my bad@Zeph sorry, I was. I didn't realize the part I was thinking of was from your post.
If you believe this to be accurate, there is no reason to use the term daesh. The purpose of the term is to say ISIS is not Islamic, but the belief that their interpretations are Islamic means you may as well call them IS at least.
Last edited:
Oh.... A piggy bank is making a mockery now? I guess we need to handle Muslims with kid gloves.
I feel like there's a ballistics joke just waiting to be used.
Ok so 3 ISIS members walk into a bar..
The bartender says, "so what ca
<<<BOOM!>>>
I called them savages because the report said they were attacking people, which is a savage act.
Last edited:
No, I don't know what you're saying. You're now comparing a 5,000 year old religion to a less than 2,000 year old one.
Religion is not an excuse to behave repugantly, no matter what it's age or history say. If your religion historically says that you should do some bad, that doesn't give you the right to do it.
I also wouldn't call Christianity "fully modernised".
That I am mate, both Hinduism and Islam have some violence in them, Hinduism has just had more time to reform, Hindus were quite a "savage" bunch back in the day but went through some enlightenment fairly recently, Islam has not had the same amount of time to do so, whether it ever does is anyone's guess. You're from London tell me Hindus arent some of the most passive people there.... (not to be mistaken with Sikhs lol)
Thats right and again I use Hinduism as an example, a lot of bad has been done in the past in the name of Hinduism and using its then contemporary interpretations to justify it, again they went through some changes IDK? maybe getting their asses kicked by all and sundry made them see the error in their ways?
Its kind of like comparing the behaviour of a 16 year old with a 36 year old
Yeah I was talking about it from the perspective of where Islamic ideology is now, mainstream Christianity is light years ahead of maintstream Islam or at least 500+ years ahead.
So hinduism and Christianity have had thier chance to do their growing up, maybe Islam will follow suit but we'll both be dead long before that.
Buddhism for some reason didnt have to go through these "stages", probably because founder looked within himself instead of up to the sky and never claimed to be a God or his messenger.
*Note to self, when starting my own religion dont claim to be God it tends to turn followers into fruit cakes (who would have thought??)
If Hindus needed 5,000 years to get their act together (and yes, Hinduism does appear to be pretty placid), does that mean we give Islam another 3,000 years? Is Scientology expected to start a murderous rampage because it's only 50 years old?
Again, the history is irrelevant.
No Id hope for them it doesnt take that long, 600AD (Mo was born in 570AD and dictated the Koran around 30 years of age IIRC) is a much later starting point than 3,000BC.
Scientology originated in 1910 an even later start date in a different part of the world under a completely different set of circumstances and are not without their controversy either just not as violent because they dont have to be.
We're not comparing apples with apples and remember the vast majority of muslims are moderate and not violent and are fighting tooth and nail against ISIS and other extreme groups like them.
Im not trying to excuse the violence attributed to Islam there is no excuse for violence Im just saying that we need to look at this through the correct chronological lenses if you like.
I think the opposite.
Hinduism: older than Islam and less violent
Scientology: younger than Islam and less violent.
I don't think the age of the religion is relevant.
I do think the violence in Islam is taken out of context though.
* A majority of Muslims live in shitty desert countries.
* Western military action in the Middle East is provocation.
* We seem to ignore (or at least trivialise) the horrible actions of nations that are majority Christian.
Islam has some disturbing passages in its texts but I don't think other religions would be too much different under the same circumstances.
1
1372
Guest
Edit
Calm down m8s
Calm down m8s
I'll think of a better way to illustrate my points, its not your fault that I m not getting my point across.
Right now time to watch my daughters boring ballet class lol
Always good debating with you mate
God dammit......!
Does this mean i can't give my son a piggyback ride?
Does this mean i can't give my son a piggyback ride?
There are several muslim scholars who have broken down why salafism is in fact takfir as it fails to take the lessons of the Qur'an and hadiths about peacefulness and the punishments for violence into account. These scholars talk about the misinterpretation of jihad as solely external struggle when Mohammad spoke principally of the inner jihad as the primary concern of the faithful.
The larger muslim community considers the salafists to be a part of a death cult, but unfortunately they gained economic solvency and protection when the house if Saud aligned with the wahhabists as a means of protecting their rule. Most Sunnis decry salafists as takfiri, or apostates, as do the Shi'ites who despise them for other reasons as well (namely being infidels in general).
Where the problem comes in is that some muslims do have an affinity for the anti-Western rhetoric of organizations like al qaeda and ISIS for purely political reasons because of the drone wars, the propping up of dictators, the legacy of decolonization and the exploitation of oil. For those people, some of whom feel like they have been terrorized by the west and their own governments, the external jihad against the enemies of the faithful is considered relevant, though not necessarily prevalent and the supposed ideological purity of Islam is put in contrast with Western culture which has done so much damage.
There are violent verses in every religious book. People cite the excess of such verses in the Qur'an, but fail to note that the canonical version of the Bible we have is fairly sanitized in that more warlike books such as those of the Macabees were excised (and yet it still includes plenty of problematic verses). Also, due to the oppression of the Hebrews, and certainly of the early Christians, much of their radicalism had to be heavily cloaked in metaphor. Certainly the book of Revelations is filled with tales of violent retribution upon the enemies of Christendom, but by making it a poetic sort of proto sci-fi story, it was less threatening against the very real oppression of the Romans. This hasn't stopped many subsequent zealots from being convinced they were overthrowing the antichrist du jour in some probable end times scenario (including, perhaps, our previous American President).
It's hard to decouple the violence in the Qur'an from modern Muslims' interpretations of the faith because of the prescriptions toward literalism. This is an idea Sam Harris, for example, has made popular, often citing very selective survey data to prove some of his points. But many of the excesses attributed to Muslim literalism are also sometimes regional cultural practices that happen to coincide with Sharia prescriptions (which may explain why conservative Islam thrives in those regions in the first place), for example, virginity tests in Indonesia or anti-blasphemy laws in India.
I'm of the opinion that literalism, martyrdom and the concept of there being such a thing as an infidel are generally problematic ideological concepts in Islam, but similar concepts exist in every religion. The wahhabist/salafist interpretation of those concepts requires ignoring much of the rest of the Qur'an and hadith which is itself apostasy.
Last edited:
